Who do you see as a President

[ProSense]

who would support Wikileaks of his/her administration's diplomatic cables?



Edited to add "please specify"

[Amonester]

1. FYI, I just voted for Alan Grayson on the headline only.

Nice try.

[ProSense]

2. So you don't believe he would support such a leak?

"Nice try"?

[daleanime]

4. Have you tried...

Depends?

[ProSense]

5. Have you? n/t

[Amonester]

6. To be honest, I don't know.

Do you?

Maybe you should ask... him?

[ProSense]

9. Maybe all the

courageous voices will be raised in defense of Assange soon enough or maybe they believe this is a security breach. Who knows?

[Amonester]

13. Leading US human rights lawyers Leonard Weinglass and Michael Ratner have joined

the defense team for Julian Assange and Wikileaks. US officials are employing cyber-warfare and prosecutorial steps to deny any safe haven for the Wikileaks operation with a fervor comparable to their drone attacks on Al Qaeda havens in Pakistan and Yemen."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x573502

Courageous voices (Human Rights lawyers), indeed.

[ProSense]

14. The comment

was in the context of a candidate for President.

[Amonester]

15. Transparency in the people's government is going to be a hard sell

for any future candidate, thanks to 'promises' turned into now laughable slogans.

[ProSense]

16. Transparency is not a hard sell

Criminal mischief is, though.

[Steely_Dan]

3. Mario Cuomo n/t

[NoPasaran]

7. Wavy Gravy

[johnaries]

8. Voted Other. Let's be honest - no one.

I support the public's "need to know" of improprieties in government. But they happen all the time, often without the President's knowledge. No one is omniscient, after all. But any release of such reflects poorly on any administration. So no one would support the public airing of "dirty laundry".

Frankly, the latest release is nothing more than Fraternity/Sorority - type gossip. It does nothing to enlighten the public except to show that all diplomats are "human". If it revealed actual crimes, it would have been different. But all it did was embarrass our Allies and will make it harder in the future for frankness and honesty in future diplomatic discussions.

Where was Wikileaks when we were duped into an illegal war with Iraq, or when the US engaged in torture? It could have actually been useful, then.

But no one would sanction the release of "secret" documents - otherwise they wouldn't be labeled "secret". I don't care how much you may personally like the "candidate".

[ProSense]

12. I suppose the notion is that either

none of these people would do anything embarrassing and/or would support the embarrassment of others.

[cliffordu]

10. Diggler

Dirk diggler

[Radical Activist]

19. You're not the boss of me, Jack.

You're not the king of Dirk. I'm the boss of me. I'm the king of me. I'm Dirk Diggler. I'm the star. It's my big dick and I say when we roll.

[cliffordu]

21. That's my boy!!!!!

Great film.

[madinmaryland]

11. Lee M. Mercer. National and International Eye-spy. All Three.

[Historic NY]

17. none of the above.

[Greyhound]

18. This is exactly the kind of thing that Representative Kucinich has talked about for years.

Actual transparency, a substantive change in the activities and character of our government.

I think Alan Grayson might, but he didn't get to hold office long enough to prove his commitment to what he says.

[TheKentuckian]

20. I'm with Russ. Even when I disagree with him, I understand his point of view.

He also has some fucking integrity and is seldom caught following the herd.

[cbdo2007]

22. None of them would. They all may say they would be ok with it....

but things seem to change when you're sitting in the Oval Office.

Just like prosecuting the Bush Administration. I would definitely vote for anyone that would persue charges against Bush and Cheney, but there is literally NO ONE who could actually win for President who would do it. NO ONE. They all would do exactly just like Obama did.

[tekisui]

23. I think that is an irrelevant question.

The content is more important than an administration's reaction.

[jefferson_dem]

24. None would ... nor should.

n/t

[Honeycombe8]

25. No one I would vote for. It is the President's duty to defend legal privacy. nt

[proud patriot]

26. Other Kamila Harris or Gavin Newsom

[BlueIris]

27. It's why the Admin is upset and the way they are choosing to express the upset that's significant.

[Toucano]

28. Feingold or Clinton could win.

I doubt the others could.