Writing Off Ron Paul Forever

Ron Paul has gone a long way down from being a legitimate independent thinker in 2000 to being another politician hoping for a political victory to a real crisis.  Paul ventured to ask nine questions about WikiLeaks, and made clear ahead of time he intended to defend the leaks as legitimate and righteous.


This is not an impossible task, nor is it necessarily wrong.  My personal struggle with Wikileaks is that the original idea is awesome, but Assange is a dick and the way the information was leaked was basically negligent, and the information itself was either diplomatic chatter that wasn't meant for public ears (because it is just chatter) or frighteningly important information that ought to have been kept secret.  Very little of it is valuable information whose leakage doesn't endanger common people.  The only thing that comes to mind for me is the British-US agreement to keep American cluster bombs on British soil despite in defiance of an international treaty banning such weapons.


Anyway, there are worthwhile questions to ask and useful lessons to take from Wikileaks.  Unfortunately, Ron Paul missed the point in the most remarkable way possible.


(I originally posted these responses to Ron Paul's nine questions on my friend Will's wall.  I have made small changes, but largely these are the my original answers.  My responses have been italicized.)




Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen? We deserve the truth, but those serving us deserve the safety secrecy provides. Otherwise, we'll uncover our own schemes and only ruin ourselves.  In the case of Yemen, publicizing that the US government agreed to launch missile strikes against terrorist camps while not speaking about such strikes publicly ought to remain a secret.  It was an agreement.  Even if American troops were involved on the ground, I would argue secrecy would still be important.  Since we were merely launching missiles with no risk to our troops, I see no reason the American public needed to know this was happening at the moment.  And the reason the Yemeni public cannot know is even more obvious,

Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information? Yes, and it was because in post 9/11 it was thought there could never be too much information-sharing. If everything was shared, more could be pieced together. But on this extreme, it is very easy for one person to leak EVERYBODY'S information.

Number 3: Why is the hostility directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information? Because that's asinine. If someone robs a bank, you should be mad at the robber, not the bank for failing to protect itself. You should be CRITICAL of the bank's failures and use the event as a reason to improve security, but it absolutely is not the bank's fault, and hostility directed towards the bank is infighting.  Certainly this is a time to review our intelligence system.  But blaming it is ridiculous.

Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering? If this much information was leaked, then yes we are certainly using the money towards intelligence gathering, and we are indeed gathering intelligence. Are we getting 80 billion dollars worth? Hard to measure that kind of thing. But the question implies we are wasting money on intel, and that is insulting.  If the question was backed up with some way to measure the use of our money, and evidence the measurement shows a severe waste of money, that would be different.

Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers? First: if Wikileaks causes North Korea to launch an attack because it feels alone or Iran to further radicalize because it now knows most of the Arab world dispises it, then Wikileaks will be responsible. Second, this is an unfair comparison. It's like comparing the number of accidental civilian deaths to the number of military targets destroyed. No matter what, accidental civilian deaths will outweigh the military targets destroyed.

Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?
Assange is not an American citizen, he does not have First Amendment Rights. Second, transmitting stolen information is illegal, just like selling blackmarket goods is always illegal, even if you bought it from the guy who stole it. Buying stolen property doesn't make it yours, even if you didn't know it was stolen. In Assange's case, he knew.

Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?
How do these attacks maintain a foreign policy of empire? Where?? In all the cables, we are dealing with two or more countries making a deal. I have no idea how one can claim the leaks prove a foreign policy of empire.

Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?
What? OK, what deaths? Second, who DIDN'T think the world was corrupt? Thirdly, the 'secret wars' are secret because, if they were published, they would create a huge backlash. You don't announce you go into a gang-controlled neighborhood, you do it as secretly as you can. There is no proof the US or any other country is secretly launching attacks in another country without that country's permission, if not at their request.  This is not like Cambodia.  That makes it not a secret war, but a covert operation. And it is covert because, if it was known the US was involved, the population of that country would riot or become radicalized. Therefore, this information is just as damaging.

Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?
It still is, but it depends on when you think the gov't is wrong. Funny Ron Paul says this, his son just got elected on the Tea Party platform of patriotic dissent. There is no question in America whether dissent is patriotic or not, and this is a stupid thing for him to say.  It is pandering in the absolute worst way.

What bothers me most about these questions is that they are all rhetorical. They are asked in a "I'm not pointing fingers, I'm just asking the questions" Glenn Beck kind of way. #7 is particularly sneaky. He implies there is a foreign policy of empire so naturally it seems easy to overlook this is HIS word. He needs to substantiate that claim, and others, and until he does, saying his questions are valid and helpful is a waste of time.

Ron Paul used to be a pretty cool guy. Then he stopped being so reliable. Then his son turned out to be a conspiracy wheeling idiot. And now Ron Paul is asking questions that he never intends to answer. Answering the questions shows he is wrong. Asking them in a seductively "Well what about....." kind of way goes to show how even the most independent of politicians can fall victim to scare tactics. Sigh.


An afterthought:


In "The Believer," (a very good film about Neo-Nazis), a debate arises among the Nazis.  Many of them throughout the film deny the holocaust.  However, of course, they are anti-Semitic and want the Jews exterminated.  And they fly the Nazi flag and revere Hitler.  One of the Nazis points out the contradiction.  Either Hitler committed the holocaust, and therefore he deserves his legacy, or he did not, and they should not associate with him because he was a failure.  His point is they can't assert the holocaust never happened while simultaneously flying the Nazi flag.  If it never happened, why associate with Nazis at all?


Similarly, many are in the awkward position of arguing both that Assange is a dangerous criminal who leaked classified information AND that the information is ultimately not critical information, therefore discrediting him as a 'hero' among those who would call him such.  And it is an untenable position.  I would say it is clear what he WANTED to be (the former) but also clear what he ended up being (the latter).  He wanted to be known as basically the guy who tore down the American government by exposing its secrets.  In fact, he did not expose a whole lot of information that was important, merely interesting (like the opinions that individual American diplomats have of world leaders).  And the information he leaked that WAS sensitive, is in fact so sensitive it is easy to say it was a bad choice for him to release it.  Those two truths make the miniscule amount of information that was leaked that was important to leak (like the American-British deal to violate an international treaty) statistical anomilies, and not due to Assange or Manning's espionage skills.  They literally 'dumped' the leaks, and waited for the news media to find the interesting pieces.  They do not deserve credit for anything.


That said, it is interesting to point out the US, contrary to their claims, comes out of the leaks looking incredibly astute.  Their diplomats are cunning and thoughtful in their critique of other leaders, and the leaks dispel any belief there is some sort of conspiracy in Afghanistan or Iraq to keep the people down (unless you are paranoid enough to believe that information is "more secret," and just hasn't been leaked yet).  Further, they prove there has been a remarkably low number of civilian tragedies in those wars, despite the insurgents hiding among civilians without even so much as an armband to distinguish them.


Interestingly, such tactics, according to the Geneva Conventions, make the insurgents legally and morally (as much as such a document can assign morality) responsible for the deaths of those civilians.  Obviously that doesn't mean a million civilian casualties would be OK, but I find it intruiging the Geneva Conventions are so readily enforced against powerful nations but rarely against their enemies.  Even if you believe, by default, that the underdog has the moral high ground, that doesn't give them the right to hide among the civilians they are claiming to protect...


If you feel I have missed anything about Wikileaks or Ron Paul's questions, or that I am dismissing their importance without adequate reason, please please tell me so.  Show me evidence of the good that was done or the "truth spoken to power" by either.  Show me a positive result either has provided the world, and I will be glad to debate the merit of that positive.  As it stands, I think defending Wikileaks is an utterly foolish thing to do with no rational basis, and I believe I have shown this to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Julian Assange's miscarriage of truth (WikiLeaks Pt 1)

This is part 1 in a 2 part post.  Part 2 will respond to Ron Paul's ridiculous "9 questions."

Julian Assange is an absolute idiot.  There, I said it.  I now know of a man more dangerous and ridiculous than Glenn Beck.  And oh my God is he more dangerous by far!

Julian Assange began with a decent idea.  He wanted to make information more readily available.  Unfortunately, he completely underestimated the importance of secrecy, and seems to have made the grave mistake of believing anything secret is inherently sinister.

By trying to make the world a more transparent place, he in fact made it wildly more dangerous.  Anyone who was unaware backdoor deals happen is foolhardy and anyone who thinks they are always bad is far too cynical for their own good.  Preconditions to negotiations are equally regular.  Anyone who doesn't realize governments often do one thing while they say another greatly simplify world politics, and anyone who wants that to stop on principle is an idealist of the silliest height!  But rather than speak generally, I'm going to go down EVERY leak I can to explain why the information was either not important to leak or too sensitive to be worth leaking.  I'm sure some of the information will be important, and I'll explain why that leak is different.  My responses will be italicized.

(However, it is about 6 pages of analysis.  It took me a few days to write.  So for those of you who don't have the patience or incentive to read through it all, my conclusion follows immediately, and the analysis will come AFTERWARDS.  That way, anyone reading this whole thing casually can do so, while the news and political junkies can immerse themselves in a wealth of information.)

I do have words for Julian Assange, himself.  I must say I think he is a misguided idealist and has made things much worse than they were.  If he truly thinks the "leaks prevented US-Iran war," then he is forgetting much of the Arab world was pulling for such a war.  In fact, his leaks (though not listed in the Telegraph summaries) showed the Arab nations privately want Iran to be attacked!  Preventing wars just to prevent wars is not a good thing.  If the only way to stop Iran is by going to war, then by all means we must go to war!  And delaying only allows them to prepare longer, and potentially acquire a nuclear weapon, which the North Koreans may be assisting in.  That was also from the leaks!  How in the world is Assange is good at missing his own point?

Perhaps because it was buried in useless and silly information that got leaked, too.  It is painfully obvious that no one went through these documents to see what was useful, it was literally a cable dump.  Thank god for 24 hour news (who thought I'd say that!) for having the time and incentive to actually read the whole thing to find the good stuff.  There is so much crap here, I have to conclude it was never reviewed.  Further, a close examination shows some of the information leaked might further destabilize world politics.  Showing North Korea that China is sick of its antics?  Revealing the Arab leaders' real (and incredibly harsh) opinions on Guantanamo detainees, and their opinion on attacking Iran?  How is revealing this information productive?  There was absolutely NO thought given to the consequences, other than a completely false belief that truth makes everything better.  Sometimes, things have to be done secretly.  They won't be secret forever, but for the plan to work, they need to be secret temporarily.

That said, we can assume everything here is true.  Given the sheer amount of information, it is laughable to believe anyone decided to make any of this up.  So everything here is true.  I do not argue that.  My issue is whether it was useful to be released, and whether it further destabilizes the world.  China truly is sick of how North Korea acts.  But what good is it to publish this?  It will just make North Korea even more unpredictable, since it knows China is only trying to reel it in because it feels it has to.  I think there were maybe 3 things that I considered important to be released.  Three.  Now that's just my opinion, but certainly most of these things are tabloid news at best.

And I'm all for governments being accountable, but Assange was so reckless I think apprehending him is absolutely necessary.  While I disagree this was a diplomatic 9/11, or that he should be hunted down like Osama bin Laden, Assange should be prevented from doing anything like this again.  It was filled with so much fluff, it is clear no one critically reviewed it before it got released, and some of the information was so sensitive it is obvious there was absolutely no discretion applied.  Julian Assange began with the noble idea of making governments accountable by not just demanding the truth, but stealing and publishing the truth.  I say stealing because this information was stolen.  But in theory, this is the only way to truly make a change.  Instead of demanding based on belief or perception, there are documents from the inside saying one thing or another.  Then there can be no room for question-dodging.  Unfortunately, he's ended up making himself look like an idiot and may have destabilized sensitive regions of the world.

If Assange had released only the important documents, I could have lauded him as a modern-day muckraker.  But as it stands, he took the idea of truth and greatly misunderstood it and completely abused it.  I also consider it possible he's a megalomaniac of sorts.  Instead of taking the time to critically review the information he got, he wanted to just publish it immediately.  Publishing that volume of data ensures something vital will be in it.  That's statistics!  If Assange really wanted to be the Upton Sinclair of today, he would have combed through the documents and published only those pieces of information that were relevant, important, and only after carefully assessing the immediate effects of its publication.  But because he didn't, he is an asshole and deserves to be locked up for his carelessness.

On to the cables! 

The US diplomatic cables include claims of "inappropriate remarks" by a member of the Royal Family and request for "specific intelligence" about MPs. American spies drew up a dossier on Alan Duncan, the international development minister, compiling details of his relationships with the leading Conservatives, including William Hague. An unnamed Labour minister was allegedly "a hound dog with women", had alleged marital problems and was accused of bullying. First, MPs in this context is NOT Military Police, but Members of Parliament.  Therefore, why in the world is this important?  Allied countries have always spied on each other, and in truth drawing a dossier isn't really that big of a deal.  This was happening anyway, can someone tell me why it is useful for the world to know?  This is information is a waste of time

 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is referred to as "Hitler" while President Nicolas Sarkozy of France is called a "naked emperor" in the US documents. There is a difference between transparency and what this is.  Just because they think Sarkozy is powerless doesn't mean they won't work with him, but out of context this sounds like just an insult.  No one needs to know this, it is wholly irrelevant and only undermines American/French relations, however superficially.  As for Ahmadinejad being Hitler, well, so what?  We call our own leaders Hitler, and they aren't nearly as awful as him!  This information is a waste of time.

Iran has obtained ballistic missiles from North Korea that could be used to strike Western Europe, the leaked files suggest. This is important, but not for the whole world to know.  In fact, it is important for the world NOT to know.  This is particularly sensitive information because it could be used to track a transaction or set up a phony trade to capture some officials.  All this does is prove Iran has ballistic missiles and that NK is selling missiles to them.  And that isn't helpful for the public to know, especially because NK and Iran also know they've been found out.  You can bet they're covering their tracks pretty hardcore.  This information should not have been leaked.

China has been using "internet outlaws" to hack into computer accounts belonging to the US government, Google and the Dalai Lama since 2002. We definitely already knew that.  China's on the cutting edge of cyber warfare and has been launching attacks for a long time.  This information is a waste of time

U.S. diplomats cast doubts on the reliability of Nato ally Turkey, portraying its leadership as divided and permeated by Islamists. Yes.  It is divided.  There was an attempted coup in the beginning of this year.  Islamist elements within the military plotted to shoot down their own military jets and bomb mosques across the nation to throw the country into panic and then seize control.  And you cannot have a military coup without some help inside the government.  This information should not have been leaked.  But there is a caveat - the more moderate elements in Turkey might see the need to act now to show their reliability.  And that might be good.

The Yemeni government covered up US drone strikes against al-Qaeda there and claimed the bombs were its own, according to the WikiLeaks documents. This is awful it got out.  Let us be clear what happened.  Yemen wanted help against al-Qaeda but knew allowing America to help would only help al-Qaeda draw members, so they agreed to let the US help if they could take credit for the strikes.  That's awesome - everyone agreed.  The word cover-up here is unclear, nothing was covered up.  The strikes were not blamed on al-Qaeda or any other group.  Leaking this information could allow al-Qaeda to resurge in Yemen, and will also allow al-Qaeda to point to any time an Arab nation claims responsibility for attacking it and say that the US is actually behind the attacks.  Yeah, that fosters domestic stability!  This information should not have been leaked.

 The race riots across Britain in 1985 led the American ambassador to draw comparisons with Charles Dickens's London.  This happened 25 years ago.  No comment.

American annoyance with an airline tax that came into force this month is to be laid bare. Washington's anger with the new aviation passenger duty, Britain's extradition arrangements with America and lax visa checks on Pakistanis coming to Britain are revealed in thousands of secret memoranda and cables. Americans don't like taxes.  Who knew?  Washington doesn't like passengers have more 'duties.'  I have no idea what that could mean.  The extradition arrangements are interesting but anyone who thought the UK and US didn't already extradite criminals has forgotten how close these two countries are allied.  As for the lax visa checks, well that might cause terrorists to move to Pakistan and apply for a visa from there into the UK.  But that doesn't seem like  a serious threat, because there are lots of countries that they could go to for easier passage.  In any event, this information is a waste of time.

Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi fears flying over water, prefers staying on the ground floor and almost never travels without his Ukrainian nurse, a "voluptuous blond."  Funny, but entirely useless.

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was forced to laugh off criticism of his playboy lifestyle in the diplomatic cables after Elizabeth Dibble, US charge d'affaires in Rome, described Mr Berlusconi as "feckless, vain, and ineffective as a modern European leader".  He's always had to laugh off these criticisms.  Who cares?

What the US embassy files say about various other world leaders are also disclosed by the leaked cables.  Not important.  Only sows resentment and superficial distrust between nations.

Prince Andrew criticised a variety of governments, including those of Britain and America, as corrupt, stupid and backward in a conversation with a US diplomat.  Interesting tabloid news, nothing more.  This information is a waste of time.

In his wave of “almost neuralgic patriotism”, the Duke also made the bizarre claim that British geography teachers are the best in the world. See above.

David Cameron was seen as “lightweight” by Barack Obama after the first meeting between the two leaders, leaked files will show.  David Cameron is the Prime Minister of England.  This information is a waste of time.  But perhaps Obama could show the same blunt attitude in dealing with the GOP?

Prince Charles does not command the same respect as the Queen, according to a senior Commonwealth official. Maybe because I'm not British, but isn't that because he's a prince and she's the Queen?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, dismissed claims that Arab countries had asked the US to attack his country as a deliberate attempt by the US to destabilise the Middle East. Interestingly, the claims he is dismissing turns out, according to Wikileaks, to be true.  In any event, he dismisses claims like this in public, so this information is a waste of time.

Released Guantánamo Bay prisoners should have electronic tagging devices implanted so that they can be followed by security officials, the King of Saudi Arabia suggested to a White House official. The KING of Saudi Arabia said this!  Not an American official, and not even a Saudi official.  THE KING!  It is interesting and shows how some of the Arab world is on America's side against extremism, undermining the idea this is a war against Islam.  The leak does not say whether America did this or not.  In any event, this was sensitive information and will surely be used as fodder against the Saudi regime to show they are in league with the Americans.  The Arabs can't be seen to be working with America, or else they will give al-Qaeda ammo with which to recruit, such as: your nation is a pawn of America.  It's unfortunate they have to be double faced about it, but that is there reality.  This information should not have been leaked.

One of the more unlikely stories to surface from the leaked documents was that of a 77-year-old American dentist who fled Iran on horseback after the 1979 Islamic Revolution.  Funny, but silly.  This information is a waste of time

American officials suspect that North Korea has been secretly aiding Iran in its attempts to build nuclear weapons under the auspices of the Chinese government.  And, as we read above, NK sold missiles already to Iran.  Now NK knows it is believed they are helping Iran build a nuke.  All this publication does is further drive underground the secret aid (if it exists).  This makes it harder to uncover AND harder to know when one has dug enough.  This information should not have been leaked.

An exile from Iran was living in London when he was targeted in an assassination plot by an Iranian agent, who was later arrested in America.  Given this already happened, there's no problem leaking this information..  Iranian exiles know the danger to them, and any assassin is aware they might be arrested.  This information is fine.

Hillary Clinton asked US diplomats in Argentina about the mental health of President Cristina Kirchner and questioned whether she was using medication to help her “calm down”. If President Kirchner is on mental health meds, this question is appropriate.  It is completely inappropriate for that question to be leaked.  Maybe the last time Clinton met with her she was particularly angry or unstable or whatever.  This information should not have been leaked.

China would support a unified Korea controlled from Seoul because it believes the North is behaving like a “spoiled child”, documents show. That's interesting, but from China's point of view this is a tragedy.  Now we all know China doesn't really want to support NK.  China loses a valuable bargaining chip.  Besides all that, NK may feel it is about to be abandoned, and begin acting even more irrationally.  Like by selling nuclear secrets to Iran.  This information should not have been leaked.

The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, could die within months from terminal cancer, an Iranian informant told American officials. Interesting, and it weakens Khamenei's position, but it isn't really relevant.  It's not like he won't be replaced by another Ayatollah, and why would the next one be all that different?  However, this might spur the reformists in Iran to rally once again to be ready to act when Khamenei finally dies.  But still, this information should not have been leaked.  Among other things, it endangers the Iranian informant by revealing there is an active informant in Iran and he is at least somewhat close to Khamenei's inner circle.  Worst case, it leads to a purge within Iran.  And once Khamenei dies, maybe his whole inner circle will be disposed of.

Angela Merkel is the only leader “man” enough to lead the European Union, according to American cables.  Very funny, very irrelevant.  She was also called uncreative in the leaks.  Interesting......  Either way, this information is damaging because most of Europe hates Merkel for acting as brashly as she has been.  Doesn't help American relations with anyone, except with Germany, which is interesting because they are more interested in dealing with Russia

The British Government secretly promised it would seek to “protect US interests” during the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war, documents show.   The Chilcot inquiry is an ongoing British inquiry into the War in Iraq to see if the British public was misled into that war.  Given that Britain has been America's closest ally in the war, there is probably information in British hands that the Americans would not like revealed or leaked or investigated.  So the Brits promised it would protect that kind of information.  Essentially, they are saying that they are investigating their own people, but not the American government.  That's good, because if any government wants to investigate another government on that level, they should use the international criminal court or the UN or some multinational organization.  As an addendum, this doesn't necessarily mean the Americans are worried some lie is going to surface if their own affairs are investigated, they just don't want the Brits to do the investigating.  And the Brits were probably pretty happy to oblige - they are not trying to launch an international investigation, just a domestic one.  That said, the Chilcot inquiry has been underway for over a year (since November 24th, 2009), so I don't see an issue with this information being leaked.  It isn't necessary, but it isn't damaging.  It is kind of a waste of time, though, as the inquiry is most definitely a domestic investigation with no desire to investigate the Americans  Calling it a secret agreement gives the agreement a far more sinister feel than it deserves.

A British executive was paid nearly £50,000 a month to oversee a lucrative oil deal, it was claimed.  Everyone hates oil and everyone hates rich people and everyone hates people rich from oil.  However, oil is a business and people should be allowed to make money off of it.  This cable is entirely worthless and only enflames those who think oil money is necessarily blood money of some kind.  This information should not have been leaked not because it is sensitive, but because it is wildly out of context  People make money off of oil all the time!  It isn't necessarily blood money.

Trade between the US and Britain dropped by up to a quarter during the recession, according to the files.  Interesting figure, I don't know enough about economics to comment.  But isn't this type of information public anyway?

A dilapidated Saudi Arabian palace was hurriedly dressed up to hide its defects from Prince Charles as he arrived for a "phoney dinner", officials reported.  Hilarious.  Useless, though, and potentially damaging depending on how much this actually matters.  If the Brits were somehow displeased with the visit, they can say they were further disrespected with a charade.  If they thought the visit was important, they can appear gracious and forgive the stunt.  But given the Americans have the real clout in Saudi Arabia, if the Americans want the Brits to forgive and forget, they will forgive and forget.  So ultimately this is just tabloid news.

The Duke of York was given a private briefing on the Serious Fraud Office's investigation of BAE Systems months before he denounced the “idiocy” of the inquiry, according to the files.  So that just means he saw the inside workings of the inquiry.  Not sure why this is important either way.  Is this inquiry a big deal in Britain?  And was Prince Andrew's comment also a big deal?

The American ambassador in London claimed that Gordon Brown's offer to cut Britain's nuclear-armed submarine fleet was made in an effort to save money.  An American ambassador CLAIMED that Brown OFFERED.  So this whole thing might be based on nothing.  In any event, nuclear armed submarines aren't terribly important for Britain to have right now, and they need to save money, so suggesting cutting the fleet isn't that crazy.  It's important to note this probably didn't happen.

Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, was concerned about David Cameron and George Osborne’s “lack of experience” in the lead-up to the election, leaked cables show.  The whole GOP was concerned about Obama's lack of experience leading up to the election.  So what?  This is a private opinion of one powerful person.  This information is a waste of time.

Senior British defense officials admitted in private discussions with the Americans that they have "deep concerns" about the possibility of Pakistani nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, the leaks disclose.  I have deep concerns about this, too.  I guess I'm glad the Brits agree, but I already figured they probably did.  This information is a waste of time.

"Political pressure" made Gordon Brown reticent about the idea of sending extra British troops to Afghanistan, a senior American diplomat reported.  I don't really know where to start.  This is wholly useless.  I guess I'm glad Brown isn't immune to political pressure, but did anyone think he was?

America turned down a proposal from Gordon Brown to allow Gary McKinnon to serve any prison sentence in Britain, leaked documents showed.  Gary McKinnon is a Scottish hacker who broke into American Department of Defense computer systems.  He has been arrested, but there is a disagreement between America and England about where he will be imprisoned.  America wants him imprisoned in America, but England doesn't want to extradite him.  Not sure how this is important.  The UK is one of the few countries able to convince America to NOT extradite their criminals.  So they're holding their ground in one place they can probably succeed.  Good for them!  This information is a waste of time, unless you thought the British government had actually turned into the Americans' dog.

The US government was urged by Kuwait to send Guantánamo Bay detainees back to Afghanistan so they could be "killed in combat".  Note that Kuwait urged the US to do this.  It's akin to releasing prisoners so they can commit another crime in the hopes they'll be killed during the event.  Such circumstances are different than murdering a prisoner, of course, though releasing a prisoner so he can be killed later is suspicious indeed.  Again, Kuwait suggested this.  The US did not urge such a thing.  Kuwait's government, a Muslim government, would like detainees to be killed.  Clearly the war on terror is not a war on Islam, and there are allies in the Muslim world.  Interestingly, they seem MORE motivated to get the detainees killed.

Kazakhstan’s defence minister drank himself "into a stupor" and used an anti-corruption campaign to purge his rivals. Well, this is the country that gave us Borat.  Ok, but really, most anti-corruption campaigns are used as purges.  Either you reveal the corruption only of your opponents, hiding your own and your allies', or you oppose all corruption, in which case you have none to hide, and you are trying to purge the system of pretty much everyone else.  As for the drinking part, so what?  World leaders can't get embarrassingly drunk even once while in office?  This information is a waste of time.

The Prime Minister of Kazakhstan spent an evening dancing "animatedly" by himself on a stage at a fashionable nightclub, according to an Astana-based diplomat.  Waste of time.  Though hilarious.

Nicolas Sarkozy was able to behave like a king because his advisers were too fearful to disagree with him, American diplomats believed.  This important to come out.  No use having advisers if you never listen to them, and it is certainly not in the spirit of democracy to rule a cabinet by fear.  Sarkozy is still France's president, so it is especially important for the French people to know this.  However, it is only the opinion of American diplomats.  The next round of French presidential elections are in 2012.  By then, this may be old news.  Which is too bad because this could be important.  If Assange had been more methodical, he may have kept this information to himself for another year or so when it would have had more of an impact.  This information is important, but might have been released too quickly.  Certainly it's been lost in the flood of other leaks.

American officials warned Hillary Clinton that Gordon Brown and David Miliband might attempt to use her to undermine David Cameron, it was revealed.  Not sure how Clinton could do such a thing, but politics is politics.  Are we really surprised Cameron's opponents wish to undermine him?

The Afghan government's repeated presidential pardons for drug traffickers with friends in high places were the subject of repeated complaints from America, the leaks disclose.  Surprise surprise.  Is this even a leak?  I thought we knew that!

US diplomats reported that the Kazakh billionaire who bought the Duke of York's former marital home has an "avarice for large bribes" Kazakhistan is not coming out well from these leaks.  In any event, unless this guy is a particularly powerful political player (instead of just a billionaire), this information is rather useless.  And if he is important, this should not have been leaked.  Now he knows they're onto him, and he will not be as eager to take bribes.  Perhaps they were setting him up to indict him?  Now they can't.  And the criminal stays free.

Gordon Brown was only sent an invitation to the D-Day celebrations in Normandy last year because the French president felt sorry for him as his Government floundered, the WikiLeaks website has disclosed. That's very funny.  Poor Gordon Brown.  In any event, this information is pretty useless.  Tabloid news at best.

US diplomats described Nick Clegg as "smooth" – a kinder assessment than those of the "lightweight" George Osborne and "fake" David Cameron.  No surprise US diplomats have an opinion on potential British Prime Ministers.  Interesting they really didn't like the guy who won, but ultimately I think we already knew that.  Obama and Cameron don't really do anything together publicly.

Tony Blair's fluency in French at his first meeting with Nicolas Sarkozy dazzled American diplomats, who were impressed that the then prime minister “didn’t need a translator”.  Bravo to Tony Blair, but this is just a neat tidbit.  Certainly not an 'intelligence leak.'

George Osborne was guilty of making a “weak” and unconvincing response to the financial crisis, a senior Conservative MP reportedly told US diplomats. Interesting because Osborne is, himself, a Conservative MP.  But are we surprised to find a party member claiming another member is not either effective or ideologically pure enough?

David Miliband championed aid to Sri Lanka during the humanitarian crisis last year to gain the support of expatriate Tamils living in key Labour marginal seats, one of his own Foreign Office staff claimed. Again, who is surprised politics rules............ politicians?  Waste of time.

America was allowed to keep banned cluster bombs on British soil in defiance of an international treaty with British agreement, leaked diplomatic cables disclosed.  This information was very important to be leaked because countries should be held accountable to what they promise.  Even though the two countries have agreed, they are both in violation of the international treaty.  This information was important to be leaked.

William Hague described David Cameron and George Osborne and himself as “children of Thatcher” to an American official, according to a leaked cable.  Ok, so they think they are super conservative.  Like American politicians claiming to be adherents to Reagen.  So what?  Is this even news in Britain?

George Osborne was given vocal training by a Harley Street expert when he was shadow Chancellor, it has emerged.  Harley Street is renowned for its medical facilities/specialists.  In any event, vocal training for speaking?  I assume not for singing.  Even so, what does this matter?  Unless it was with the taxpayers dollars, and for something irrelevant to his job, I don't see how this is at all important!

British embassy staff in Moscow were hassled for visas by Russian undercover agents, according to leaked cables sent to the White House.  Ok.  Why did the agents have to be undercover if they were in Moscow?  No matter.  Again, is anyone all that surprised Russia is still mistrustful of the West?

Bolivian President Evo Morales needed surgery for a "serious tumour" in his nose, one of the US diplomatic cables said.  Ok.  Whatever.  This information is useless.

Vladimir Putin has secret “illicit” assets hidden outside his country, former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice claimed in reports released in the latest batch of cables.  Interesting.  I guess this is important to come up, but I'm not sure what good it would do.  Unless someone wanted to go after him, and I'm not sure anyone has that kind of motivation.  I guess it depends on how 'illicit' the assets are.

It is likely Mr Putin, the Russian Prime Minister, had prior knowledge of the plot to murder the Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko in London, one of America’s top diplomats alleged.  A top diplomat claimed it is likely that... Ok.  That's pretty dubious right there.  Further, if this information was more reliable, it should have been kept a secret.  Until some kind of criminal trial.  It being out in the open now gives Putin time to cover his tracks more efficiently than if it were revealed in court.  That being said, the wording of this makes the whole bit kind of hear-say.

American diplomats claimed that France has not done enough to integrate its ethnic and religious minorities and needs to give Muslims a place in mainstream society.  Anyone with even a passing interest in French history would know this.  France is absolutely terrible at integration, and racist nationalism is pretty rampant.

Pakistan continues to support the terrorists who carried out the 2008 attacks on Mumbai despite claiming to have launched a crackdown on the organisation, the United States Ambassador to Islamabad wrote in a cable.  Interesting.  But why?  I don't know why everyone needs to know this - it's a political problem.  I suppose the people of Pakistan could demand answers, so maybe some good will come of this.  Mumbai is in India, however, which is Pakistan's mortal enemy.  How surprised can we be that Pakistan supports elements that disrupt India's stability?  This is important to come out, but we need to be reasonable in what we ask other countries to do.  India/Pakistan won't drop their years of hostility just because America thinks there's more important things to do.

There is “no question” of components from Pakistani bombs falling into the hands of terrorists because the country's nuclear arsenal is “foolproof”, the country’s high commissioner to London said.  That's interesting.   In public of course they will not be nervous.  But in private, they might be more willing to request help.  But they aren't.  So this commissioner is very foolish, very bold, or knows something I don't.  In any event, this information is rather useless.  

Gordon Brown was dismissed as an “abysmal” prime minister by the US embassy in London within a year of taking office, lurching from “political disaster to disaster”  Ultimately useless tabloid news.

Ed Balls was branded "dull and charmless" by US diplomats assessing Labour's leadership contenders, while Harriet Harman was called a "policy lightweight" and Ed Miliband was left out of the picture altogether.  Again.  Who cares?

President Hamid Karzai suggested British forces were “not up to the task” of securing Helmand province, with other Afghan officials suggesting our soldiers were “not ready to fight as actively as American soldiers”.  Interesting critique.  Certainly important for the Brits to know they weren't as appreciated.  But maybe they weren't fighting as hard?  Or maybe Karzai was just stirring the waters.  I tend to assume soldiers are above politics.  They shouldn't care what Karzai says.  Then again, Karzai was being kind of a dick.  I guess it's good to get out that Karzai is just so damn critical of even the dedication of the West's soldiers, but ultimately this won't change anything, and will just piss off any British military families back home.

American military commanders said that Britain repeatedly had failed to secure its part of Helmand province in Afghanistan, blaming them for the high levels of violence in Sangin.  Interesting follow up leak.  Maybe the British are not terribly effective at fighting insurgencies?  In any event, this just pisses the people off, whereas the American commanders could be blowing off steam among themselves as they prepared a more constructive way to bring this up to their British allies.

American diplomats were scathing about the Mexican army, revealing"real concern" that the country was unfit to combat drug trafficking.  Yeah.  I feel that way, too.  Don't we all?  What's surprising about this?

The US was concerned about the prospect of Argentina taking military action in retaliation for British companies exploring the Falkland Islands for oil in 2009 Ok, sounds like something to be concerned about.  But the military action didn't happen.  Do we need to be aware of every country's possible intentions?  And again, this is only America's opinion.  Maybe Argentina had no plans to do so.  This should not have been leaked.

Silvio Berlusconi’s “nefarious connection” with Vladimir Putin has allegedly allowed him to profit “handsomely” from hugely lucrative energy deals, according to American diplomats.  This was important to leak.  Here is Assange fighting corruption.  Unless you realize the NAZIs could have said the same thing about the American/British connection in the 30s and 40s.  Though the Brits did not profit individually, they were certainly getting better deals from the Americans because of ideology, not necessarily superior economics.  These are the Americans calling connections 'nefarious.'  Most connections involving Putin tend to be corrupted in some fashion.  This information is not useless, but it is taken out of context.  Berlusconi is not necessarily being corrupt because he is doing business with a corrupt man.  Who else in Europe can sell him his energy needs?  Russia has a HUGE output.  They just also happen to be terribly corrupt.

US officials were shocked after the European parliament rebuked the Obama administration over plans to monitor international banking transactions for terrorist activity, leaked cables reveal.  I think we were all pretty pissed off about that.  Certainly why would US officials be any less upset?

Hundreds of sites across the globe that could present a target for terrorist attacks have been identified by US officials.  Only hundreds?  I'm surprised the number is so low.  In any event, aren't we glad our state officials are figuring out potential targets?  Presumably, they are doing this so they can better protect those sites.

Qatar is using Al-Jazeera, the Arabic news channel, as a “bargaining tool” to further its international standing, US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks claim.  That's interesting.  So Qatar will........ offer to block Al-Jazeera from its airways?  Hm.  Well that will enrage and perhaps radicalize their people, but no more than if they actually blocked the channel.  This information was important to leak, free press should not be a bargaining chip.

An anti-Google campaign was personally overseen by the head of China's powerful propaganda department, US cables claim.  Who else in China would bother to do that?  Clearly it's a propaganda war.

Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorist groups are chiefly funded by private backers in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states friendly to America, diplomats claimed.  But the backers are private.  So the countries' are simply harboring them, knowingly or not.  This isn't as conspiratorial as it seems.  It's not like the governments are playing both sides.  That said, perhaps these governments will now work to uncover who these people are.  But they clearly already knew these things, and now those private backers know to be wary, so they may flee.  And guess what would flee with them?  Their money.  So they'll just be a private backer living in a different country.  This makes hunting them even harder.

China used sophisticated computer hackers specially employed by private companies to plot internet warfare, according to state department cables.  Ok, well that's interesting.  China is basically using internet military contractors.  Well, we use 'regular' military contractors.  I guess the only interesting thing is that China doesn't seem to have a reliable state-controlled troop of hackers.  Or they just aren't as good as the private-sector hackers.

The hacking of Google which resulted in the search engine withdrawing from China was overseen by a senior member of the Communist regime, leaked American cables reveal.  Who else would have overseen the attack?  I mean really.

Britain’s 'paranoia' over maintaining the 'special relationship' was privately mocked by American officials, cables released by WikiLeaks suggest.  Are they mocking that the Brits are paranoid, or that they want to maintain the special relationship?  Important difference.  In any event, nothing more than tabloid news.