PoliticsUSA: WikiLeaks: Reuters reporters finger Saudi King Abdullah vs Iran

Reuters reporters Arshad Mohammed and Ross Colvin (I geezered them via Yahoo! Nooz), they filed a story with their editors on the latest intrusion of WikiLeaks 'Hole, the guy who has stolen and assembled huge files of digital documents, from the USA govt.

The cables are the third huge release of classified U.S. data by WikiLeaks. U.S. officials believe they were passed to WikiLeaks by a disgruntled Army private, Bradley Manning, who had access to classified computer networks as a junior intelligence analyst in Iraq. Manning is now in a military jail, but authorities believe he provided the classified data before he was arrested. WikiLeaks has been parceling it out at intervals.

In the round I most remember the world's star info-blackmailer (said Leaker mentioned above) endangers l+vz of USA intelligence operatives a/o contacts in warzones (I've seen this possiblity impugned on fuzzy-evangelical s+t Jesus Creed, a spirituality + politics blog. The Leaker, l+k the nuke plants in Iran, shoud have been taken out long ago.

Instead, we are made privy to exchanges between Saudi Arabia (home of Islam's holiest shrines upon which country and king  is, therefore, incumbent the task  of the religiously-necessitated hosting of the annual Hajj from everywhere, including Iran, to Mecca, Saudi Arabia > ) hence Saudiland's King is exposed in the latest WikLleaks for using colourful langwij in regard to the status of Iran, and supplying inc+siveness of analysis and adv+ce to the USA -- that's what had happened.  But, the bigger question is What has since happened to his now-revealed adv+s ?   

Both Israel and Saudi Arabia, and now apparently the potentate of Bahrain, at the t+m, thawt the USA shoud do the bombing.  After all, the Saudi Monarch's decision that it was t+m to take out nuke-monger Iran fell on the deaf ears of the American political establishment, not least of all the Presidency.  Neither President Bush of the previous t+m, nor President Obana since, have deterred Iran.  Nor have they deterred the Saudi-financed expansion of Muslim mosques and schools in the USA where Saudiland's creepy Wahhhist state-religionists of the established Muslim sect control curriculum and textbooks, some of them qu+t nefarious to American values, whether secularist, or Christian.  Or Judaic.  Or Shi'ite for that matter (Shi'a compose 15% of Saudi Arabia's population, who feel they are maltreated as 2nd-class citizens). Or the United Arab Emirites (several of which have Sh'ite minorities, even a majority in one emirate with a Sunni monarach).  Or Alawite (Syria's elite minority, with Sunni, Shi'ite, and Christian subcurrents).  

WASHINGTON – Saudi King Abdullah has repeatedy urged the United States to attack Iran's nuclear program and [counter-attack] China-directed cyberattacks on the United States, according to a vast cache of diplomatic cables [cabled documents] released on Sunday in an embarrassing leak that undermines U.S. diplomacy. 

The more than 250,000 documents, given to five media groups by the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks, provide candid and at times critical views of foreign leaders as well as sensitive information on terrorism and nuclear proliferation filed by U.S. diplomats, according to New York T+mz.

The White House condemned the release by WikiLeaks and said the disclosures may endanger U.S. informants abroad. WikiLeaks said its website was under attack and none of the underlying [cabled documents] was visible there Sunday night, though some were posted by news organizations.

Among the revelations in Britain's Guardian newspaper, which also received an advance look at the documents along with France's Le Monde, Germany's Der Spiegel and Spain's El Pais, King Abdullah is reported to have "frequently exhorted the U.S. to attack Iran to put an end to its nuclear weapons program."

First, the term "whistle-blowing webs+t WikiLeaks" hardly seems appropriate.  


Here's the longer version of the Mohammed and Colvin story that appears on an unofficial webs+t  section with many pages, a webpage devoted to the Royalty of Saudiland Royalty.nu -- The World of Royalty, carrying a version of  Mohammed-Colvin, Saudi King urged U.S. to attack Iran: WikiLeaks.


The story of the leak itself may be found here: Cables obtained by Wikileaks sh+n l+t into secret diplomatic worlds by Scott Shane and Andrew W. Lehren, NYT (Nov28,2k10)

Some of the cables [cabled documents], made available to New York T+mz and several other nooz organizations, were written as recently as late February [2k10],  revealing the Obama administration’s exchanges over crises and conflicts. The material was originally obtained by WikiLeaks, an organization devoted to revealing secret documents. WikiLeaks posted 220 cables, some redacted to protect diplomatic sources, in the first installment of the archive on its Web site on Sunday.

The author of this perfidy shoud be treated like the uncommon criminal he is, and shoud be taken out by a rogue CIA guy, or somebody, just as they do it in the movies.

-- Politicarp


More Info:


•  WikiLeaks on Iran: Arab world in fear of Iran, Borzou Daragahi (Nov28,2k10; updated Nov29,2k10) Los Angeles T+mz (original: "Iran must be stopped: Arab leaders implored U.S. to attack, WikiLeakes disclosures show by Borzou Daragahi and Paul Richter, via Daily Caller

•  Wikileaks and the Demise of the Diplomatic Cable Posted: 28 Nov 2010 08:22 PM PST (Kenneth Anderson posted to Volokh Conspiracy email newsletter) I think my Opinio Juris co-blogger Peter Spiro is probably right that one of the collateral consequences of Wikileaks is the demise, or anyway acceleration toward the demise, of the traditional diplomatic cable [cabled document]. But this episode will surely make cables look less attractive still. It’s one thing to understand that your work will come to light 25 years hence, when you (and your interlocutors) will either be dead or retired, too old much to care; or else flattered to see your handiwork become the stuff of history. It’s another to have to worry about something being disclosed that might affect your ability to function in your next post (or whether you’ll get one at all).    Wh+l you're on the email page, or on the webs+t, scroll down to: Saudis and Other Arab States Want U.S. to Attack Iran’s Nuclear Program Posted: 28 Nov 2010 04:28 PM PST (David Bernstein on Volokh Conspiracy)

•  perhaps more later ....


-- Politicarp

Politics: Diplomacy: Speaker of USA House of Reps visits Syria's Prez, against Prez Bush's foreign policy

International Herald Tribune, an English language edition published in Paris, carries a report by Hassan M. Fattah, "Pelosi meets Syrian president despite Bush criticism" (Apr4,2k7). In her representations, Pelosi conveyed a new ambiguity in the official American view, having stopped off in Israel first and bringing to Prez Assad of Syria the impression that Israel was softening on the issue of Israeli-Syrian peace talks in future. Israeli Prime Minister Olmert had to put a statement on his website to correct Pelosi's misrepresentation by ambiguation:

"The prime minister emphasized that although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the axis of evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East," the statement said.

It went on to list several preconditions for talks.

"In order to conduct serious and genuine peace negotiations, Syria must cease its support of terror, cease its sponsoring of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, refrain from providing weapons to Hezbollah and bringing about the destabilizing of Lebanon, cease its support of terror in Iraq, and relinquish the strategic ties it is building with the extremist regime in Iran," the statement said.

Picking up after Pelosi's mess and after her elbowing out the constitutional role of the President and the Secretary of State (in this case of course Mdme Condoleeza Rice), Pelosi attempted to take over USA foreign policy and diplomacy. Why Pelosi arrogates this extra-constitutional role to herself is not motivated by any clear interest of the USA, nor for that matter, of Israel. In one stroke, Pelosi anointed herself Queen of Congressional meddling. Needless to say, the manoeuvre did not please Prez Bush.

DAMASCUS: Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House of Representatives, met here Wednesday with President Bashar al-Assad and discussed the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect for peace talks between Syria and Israel.

Pelosi, the third-ranking elected official in the United States after the president and the vice president, is the most senior American politician to visit the country since relations between the United States and Syria faltered in 2003. Her visit has been criticized by President George W. Bush and other administration officials, who have sought to isolate Syria diplomatically.

The visit is being seen as a strong signal of re-engagement with Syria by the United States, and appears to have raised the profile of Assad internationally. But it remains unclear how the development is being received by other countries in the Middle East that have uneasy relations with Syria.

A Canadian mag's online website, Maisonneuve in an article by mediascout Philip Trencer in his typically twisted way, remains all too apt with a telling metaphor:

The legislative branch of the US government is in revolt against the executive branch, and the rebellion is playing out today in Damascus, where House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi is to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad, in a flagrant and very symbolic repudiation of the White House’s hardline stance against a government accused of backing the Hamas and Hezbollah militant groups.

NorthAmerica/MidEast > USA/Israel/Syria

President George W. Bush, well known by now for his administration’s resistance to diplomatic relations with antagonistic countries, pulled no punches in his criticism of Pelosi’s move. The visit will “lead the Assad government to believe they’re part of the mainstream of the international community, when in fact they are a state sponsor of terror,” he told a press conference in the Rose Garden yesterday. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid shot back, saying Bush “should become in tune with the fact that he is the president of the United States, not the king of the United States, and he has another branch of government … to deal with.” Meanwhile, Pelosi, who in Damascus yesterday shunned her usual business-suit look in favour of a flower-patterned head scarf and black abaya robe, said the visit was meant to “hopefully build some confidence” between Syria and the US.

Pelosi’s trip can be interpreted as either a symbolic rejection of Bush White House policy, or an attempt by Congress to launch its own foreign policy, or both.

If Trencer had originated the metaphor, I may not have paused to reflect as deeply as I have attempted; but Trencer's metaphor originates with US Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, like Nancy Pelosi over in the House, Democrats both, both now sitting in the catbirds' seats. Reid has a sl+t edge over Pelosi as to constitionality. The US Constitution mandates the Senate to advise and consent to the Executive branch's initiatives on Foreign Policy, but not to control it. Reid, too, in my judgment verbally overstepped the Senate's role. And, of course, there's quite a difference between a strong Presidency as provided by the US Constitution and the world's kings (being a king does not determine political powers in all monarchies, as in the case of Her Majesty, Canada's Queen, Elizabeth II.

More to the point, the US office of President is constitutionally designed non-PrimeMinsiterial strength with a stipulated length of time in that office, with regular 4-year elections. There is a check and balance in a non-executive role for the Senate on Foreign Policy, but that does not include usurping the President's final say. The House of Representatives has no such check-and -balance role on Foreign Policy, but is nowadays attempting under the Democrat majority there to usurp the President's constitutional function by controlling the funding of any Foreign Relations program. Yet even that is far less than what Mrs Pelosi arrogated to herself in making representations abroad to Assad and wiping out the Israeli position on any possible future peace talks with Syria.

However, even with all these caveats, it must be added that just a few days before Speaker Pelosi's jaunt, three Republican members of the House of Representatives made their own extra-constitutional foreign-relations power-mongering jaunts to Syria, also having met with Assad before Speaker Pelosi even landed in Israel, let alone Syria. Fortunately, for these usurping Republicans there was no additional dangerous indelicacy in regard to Israel. Republican Party discipline has broken down irretrievably in the House.

So, President Bush or no, Secretary of State Rice or no, onlookers-citizens like me seem to have make the adjustment necessary to live with the power-fact that various persons of both parties in the House, including its Speaker, with the support at least of the ranking Democrat in the Senate, have pulled off a Foreign Policy coup, extra-constitutional tho it be; and the US now has opened to terrorism-supporting Syria.