Neo-con asks why Julian Assange isn’t dead yet


by Sunny
30th October, 2010 at 4:44 am    

Jonah Goldberg is a regular contributor to Fox News, editor-at-large of National Review Onlien (right-wing US mag) and one of those highly rabid neo-conservatives. In an article for the Chicago Tribune, he asks: Why is Assange still alive?.

These people stop at nothing in order to silence anyone who exposes their projects (the Iraq war) as one massive scandal.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Civil liberties,United States






25 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. sunny hundal

    Blogged: : Neo-con asks why Julian Assange isn't dead yet http://bit.ly/a6uNL3


  2. Ceasefire Magazine

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Neo-con asks why Julian Assange isn't dead yet http://bit.ly/a6uNL3


  3. Press Not Sorry

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Neo-con asks why Julian Assange isn't dead yet http://bit.ly/a6uNL3


  4. Paddy Eden

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Neo-con asks why Julian Assange isn't dead yet http://bit.ly/a6uNL3


  5. Nicholas Stewart

    Neo-con asks why Julian Assange isn’t dead yet http://j.mp/cDOxSj – these fucking people


  6. Noxi

    Pickled Politics » Neo-con asks why Julian Assange isn’t dead yet http://t.co/IluQIJp #wikileaks #frago242


  7. blogs of the world

    Jonah Goldberg is a regular contributor to Fox News, editor-at-large of National Review On… http://reduce.li/j4q2yz #asks




  1. Sarah AB — on 30th October, 2010 at 8:51 am  

    I’m not sure you’ve summarised the story quite fairly. Perhaps that’s because I don’t know this writer – maybe if I did I’d have read the piece differently – but as the term neo-con is used so freely and broadly on this blog I don’t feel the description of him as a ‘rabid neo-conservative’ is enough to go on!

    I thought it was quite satirical and slippery. His criticism of Assange seemed genuine (which seems fair enough to me) but he didn’t seem to be advocating or condoning the assassination of Assange, more using the fact he hadn’t been killed to point out that the security services weren’t as sinister/all powerful as some bloggers liked to think.

    The most potentially shocking bit comes at the end – again, it’s quite possible I might read this differently if I had a better sense of the writer – but it could be read as a slightly cynical turn, acknowledging the fact that in fact the security services *do* sometimes use dodgy methods – but have to avoid them if the target is a white media celebrity rather than a Muslim ‘terrorist’.

  2. Rumbold — on 30th October, 2010 at 9:49 am  

    Sunny:

    Did you read the piece, or just the headline? As Sarah AB said, it is a critique of the idea that the security services are all powerful and evil, easily able to assassinate someone at a moment’s notice for breathing out of turn.

  3. Kisan — on 30th October, 2010 at 10:25 am  

    I’d say the author (of this pickled politics blog entry) needs to eat a piece of humble pie and apologise for assigning murderous motives and rabidity to someone on the basis of shoddy reading.

  4. Ravi Naik — on 30th October, 2010 at 4:13 pm  

    apologise for assigning murderous motives and rabidity to someone on the basis of shoddy reading.

    Actually, the article is pretty clear that murdering would be an option to silence Assange if not for the PR disaster that would entail.

  5. damon — on 30th October, 2010 at 5:30 pm  

    Did Munira Mirza also get completely misunderstood?

    Right-wingers (and this includes people like Boris Johnson’s advisor Munira Mirza) are fond of ignoring history and claiming that the rise of the BNP came as a result of ‘too much political correctness’

    I guess I’ll never know, unless people actually bother to speak up on PP rather than just insinuate.
    Which is what a several PP regulars are into right now.

    People like joe90 for example.
    It does get a bit like that Islamophobiawatch site at times.

  6. Kisan — on 30th October, 2010 at 5:53 pm  

    #4, not at all.

    Here’s what he says:
    Of course, that’s just Hollywood. But if you read left-wing accounts of the intelligence community, two versions dominate. The CIA and similar outfits are either evil and incompetent, or evil and supercompetent.

    Under either scenario, you’d think Assange, super-whistle-blower of the international left, would be a greasy stain on the Autobahn already.

    Goldberg obviously wants Assange’s leaks stopped but the “why isn’t he dead” part is all about why if as per far left theories as above the US Govt is such a way is this man still alive?

    “the article is pretty clear that murdering would be an option to silence Assange if not for the PR disaster that would entail.”

    Not at all:
    Even if the CIA wanted to take him out, they couldn’t without massive controversy. That’s because assassinating a hipster Australian Web guru as opposed to a Muslim terrorist is the kind of controversy no official dares invite.

    It says that “even if” that was considered as an option. It never says that is would be an option if not for but specifically says it isn’t and continues:

    That’s because assassinating a hipster Australian Web guru as opposed to a Muslim terrorist is the kind of controversy no official dares invite.

    That’s fine. And it’s the law. I don’t expect the U.S. government to kill Assange, but I do expect them to try to stop him. As of now, the plan seems to be to do nothing at all.

    —————–

    Personally when thinking about anti-American theorists I think of Noam Chomsky, full time totally obsessed critic of US policies for decades and:

    1. Not assassinated.
    2. Employed by a University without any Govt pressure to sack him.
    3. Winner of acolades and awards.
    4. Millionaire author.
    5. Totally free to go about demonising US policies.

    That itself gives lie to the US as assassinating its intellectual critics.

    The author is just mourning that the US Govt isn’t taking any serious means to stop Assange doing this leaking and poking fun at America haters who believe in conspiracy theories and that America is unlimitedly evil.

  7. John Christopher — on 30th October, 2010 at 6:25 pm  

    Anyone who sees the intelligence community in terms of black and white must have rocks for brains. Given that those within the CIA, Mossad and M15 etc cover the full spectrum of the human experience both good and bad, the concept of termination with extreme prejudice can never be considered as mere flight of fancy. JFK was assassinated in broad daylight and he was the president. Noam Chomsky was a thorn in the side of the neo-con right and he lived. Same ole, same ole. Assange is still alive because ( I suspect ) he is just TOO hot at the moment to take out. But he would be wise to keep a low profile and watch his back from now on.

  8. Niaz — on 30th October, 2010 at 7:14 pm  

    Well said damon !
    This site is just like Islamophobia watch……what will all the anti-Muslim comments from the likes of yourself and others

  9. damon — on 30th October, 2010 at 11:22 pm  

    ”Niaz” are you just another of what is called a sockpuppet internet pest who pops up all the time in different guises?

    What you are suggesting is quite scurrilous – and is a typical example of the problem with the commentary on anti-racism and anti-Islamophobia these days in my opinion.
    I’d say that these false accusations of racism and islamophobia add fuel to the things that any decent person would be against.

    Yours is the sort of post that deserves to be deleted.

  10. joe90 — on 31st October, 2010 at 11:35 am  

    post #5

    do you have a guilty conscience or something? simple really you want to praise neo con fanatics you will be called out on it.

  11. damon — on 31st October, 2010 at 2:45 pm  

    Who’s the ‘neo con fanatics’ you’re talking about joe90?
    The American commentator who wrote the article about the Wikileaks guy, or Munira Mirza?

    There is certainly a debate to be had there on some of the things she has said – and I prefer to have that, rather that just call people names.

    link

  12. TORY — on 1st November, 2010 at 1:14 pm  

    ‘Did you read the piece, or just the headline? As Sarah AB said, it is a critique of the idea that the security services are all powerful and evil, easily able to assassinate someone at a moment’s notice for breathing out of turn.’

    I fairness, I can’t even open the article but knew that would be the case anyway.

    Sunny can’t understand the basic of content.

    Reason he never went pro?

  13. joe90 — on 1st November, 2010 at 10:16 pm  

    post #11

    are you asking dumb questions on purpose?

  14. Shamit — on 1st November, 2010 at 10:27 pm  

    Funny on this blog, our famous Earwicga (right before the labour leadership election ballots went out) went on sprouting how David Miliband has blood on his hand.

    And, Julian Assange himself admitted that Wikileaks would most likely have blood on their hands – and that would be bloods of our soldiers.

    So, I guess if you inadvertently spill enemy blood which in turn could save your own citizens (with due approval from the PM of course) – you are a blood thirsty tyrant.

    But on the other hand, if you expose our troops and inadvertently spill their blood – then you are a hero.

    Wow – now I am really impressed. Talked about bein fucked in the head.

    Its kinda like the argument – Clinton is racist when he says that my opposition to Iraq war is a fairy tale but when I lose elections its because voters are stupid and clinging on to guns and their bigotry.

    Recent gallup poll – 21 percent of independents more likely to back a democrat if Bill Clinton campaigns for him/her (including black candidates) – 12 per cent of independents likely to back a democrat if Obama campaigns for him/her.

    I wonder what our I(-opposed – Iraq from harvard boy pulls out from his bag. Can’t wait to see.

  15. Shamit — on 1st November, 2010 at 10:43 pm  

    And before people get stupid and start complaining about me making things up – this is an excerpt from the New Yorker:

    Assange does not recognize the limits that traditional publishers do. Recently, he posted military documents that included the Social Security numbers of soldiers, and in the Bunker I asked him if WikiLeaks’ mission would have been compromised if he had redacted these small bits. He said that some leaks risked harming innocent people—“collateral damage, if you will”—but that he could not weigh the importance of every detail in every document. Perhaps the Social Security numbers would one day be important to researchers investigating wrongdoing, he said; by releasing the information he would allow judgment to occur in the open.

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=9#ixzz144RzOvLr

    But he is a jolly good fellow – who cares he did not put a palestinian life or afgha life in danger – he just put a british soldier or american soldier’s life in danger. Who cares about that ?

    But David Miliband is a born torturer. Wow the levels the loony fucking left would go to.

  16. Shamit — on 1st November, 2010 at 10:56 pm  

    and this is the MSNBC transcript between Obama and the legendary Tim Russert:

    MR. RUSSERT: You were not in the Senate in October of 2002. You did give a speech opposing the war. But Senator Clinton’s campaign will say since you’ve been a senator there’s been no difference in your record. And other critics will say that you’ve not been a leader against the war, and they point to this: In July of `04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of `04. And this: “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it.

    SEN. OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on MEET THE PRESS during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq.

    *****************

    btw, doesn’t obama’s stance remind you of someone closer to home – the darling of the loony left and the unions – I will support the government when they are right and I would oppose them when they are wrong.

    Well???????

    ******************

    Before anyone accuses me of being a right wing troll – I have worked for the Democratic Party in the US (infact ms. Yuvette Cooper and I worked on the same campaign and I worked after that as well) -

    I have always supported the left and ideals of the left but not the loony fringes that somehow have engulfed the left nowadays. And I have supported and worked for more left candidates than most people on this blog.

    ***************************

  17. damon — on 1st November, 2010 at 11:15 pm  

    It’s a pity that Pickled Polictics attracts people like joe90 as regular commentators.
    Joe, are you a believer in some all-powerful God?

  18. earwicga — on 2nd November, 2010 at 2:09 am  

    Shamit – I’m certainly not ‘famous’, and nor did I have any effect on the result of the Labour leadership election (so you are making things up ;) ).

    I don’t think anybody has ever said ‘David Miliband is a born torturer’ – that is as loony as saying Wagner should be in the finals.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.