At the moment, for example, we are sitting on 5GB from Bank of America, one of the executive’s hard drive. Now how do we present that? It’s a difficult problem. … To have impact, it needs to be easy for people to dive in and search it and get something out of it.Wikileaks’ Julian Assange • Explaining how they leak material to the press, but dropping the fact that they have a bunch of stuff from Bank of America ready to leak. This was completely ignored by the press (and even we didn’t make much of it when we posted about it a few months back). But then our boy Julian talked to Forbes, people put two and two together, and all of a sudden Bank of America’s stock went down today. The difference? Assange wasn’t seen as a threat when he made this interview a year ago. Now … he’s a threat. source (via • follow)
She’s become the issue. She’ll never be an effective negotiator with diplomats who refuse to forgive her exuberances, and even foreign diplomats who do forgive her will still regard her as the symbol of an overreaching United States. Diplomacy is about face, and the only way for other nations to save face will be to give them Clinton’s scalp.Slate’s Jack Shafer • Arguing that the Wikileaks report on the diplomatic cables may be enough to do her in as Secretary of State. Why? Because, according to Wikileaks documents, she ordered her diplomats to spy on the people they were talking to. Even if she did nothing illegal, it’s going to be tough for other countries to trust someone they think is spying on them. If it does kill her career as Secretary of State, though, we don’t think it kills her political career. She’s too good to go away that quickly. source (via • follow)
theonlyplfrmat says: Two - Oh yeah. Saudi Arabia - and the rest of the Sunnis in the Middle East - fear a strong Iran. The Saudis even not-so-secretly authorized Israel to use their airspace in order to bomb Iran.
» We say: Damn right, though let’s face it; most countries aren’t pulling for a strong Iran right now. Iran and North Korea have been a much larger diplomatic threat than Iraq ever was to us, but somehow the U.S. and United Nations have allowed both countries to plainly ratchet things up with relatively few limits, while we spent seven years in Iraq we didn’t need to. I think in a lot of ways, I agree with your earlier reblog of my post, but I think in some others, it’s going to be harder for the U.S. to ensure the trust of other countries, especially considering the strong interventionist role we’ve taken in the last fifty years. I liken the effect to that of Windows getting hit by a large-scale virus; sure, most everyone will still rely on Microsoft products because they’re already locked-in, but if they’re having security issues, it’s the equivalent of a major PR hit.
At the start of a series of daily extracts from the US embassy cables - many of which are designated ‘secret’ – the Guardian can disclose that Arab leaders are privately urging an air strike on Iran and that US officials have been instructed to spy on the UN’s leadership.A sentence at the start of the Guardian’s package on Wikileaks’ “Cablegate” • Which kind of says it all. The U.S. is going to have a lot of fun cleaning up this mess. Also worth reading: The New York Times’ package. source (via • follow)
Tonight promises to be Wikileaks’ largest data dump ever. U.S. diplomats have been publicly deriding the organization for days and saying that the release of thousands of diplomatic cables could lead to deaths. Meanwhile, they’re the target of a DDOS attack. More than the Iraq and Afghan War documents, this could prove to be one of the greatest gifts Wikileaks has offered up (besides the weirdly Hollywood story of Julian Assange, who Bill Maher was born to play). Or not. What do you think will come of tonight’s leak?