[Rod]

Your argument is absolutely ridiculous. This has nothing to do with republicans vs democrats. As far as I know, LBJ and McNamara were democrats. And so are Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, who voted for the war in order to avoid jeopardizing their chances of getting to the oval office. What exact part of "meretricious congressmen" didn't you understand?

Assange has never claimed that there are no legitimate secrets. He's not exposing cyphers nor nuclear secrets. The truth that he's exposing is one that the Afghans know well, but that the American public does not know. The purpose of WikiLeaks is to promote transparency and accountability by exposing truths that catalyze reform. This means, essentially, to close the feedback loop so that the electorate can make wise decisions every four years. If the electorate has no clue what is going on, you have no republic, you have a farce.

What reform is attained by exposing someone's phone or address? That's right. None. If you can't understand that privacy and transparency aren't incompatible, then you must be seriously intellectually challenged. In other words, you have no point, and you have no argument.

[rick888]

"What reform is attained by exposing someone's phone or address? That's right. None. If you can't understand that privacy and transparency aren't incompatible, then you must be seriously intellectually challenged. In other words, you have no point, and you have no argument."

When you are exposing potential informants and spies to known murderers, lots.

[_pi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

Seriously? You're complaining about Wikileaks doing it (debatable) when Bush & Co make this seem like so 2006.

[Rod]

Either you're too naive or not cynical enough. Assange is on a power trip, but WL is necessary and has been useful so far, so I forgive him. He has a large ego and wants to deliver impact. Exposing informants is peanuts. Why would he do it intentionally? He has already caused one government to collapse (in Kenya). If you had such power, would you use it for the little things, or for the big things? Too bad for the informants, it would have been better if no names had ever been exposed.

[blasdel]

No, call it Collateral Murder

[rick888]

"Seriously. You're complaining about Wikileaks doing it (debatable) when Cheney makes this seem like so 2006"

Seriously. When has two wrongs ever made a right? Also, the topic isn't Cheney, it's Wikileaks.

Do republicans that don't run the country anymore always have to be brought up when left leaning organizations or politicians are criticized for their actions?