Nancy Pelosi promised transparency.

“We will bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks, and we will give the American people the leadership they deserve.”

Barack Obama promised transparency.

“We’ll have [healthcare reform] negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so the people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who is making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.”

We have waited for transparency in government, the American citizen became impatient and spoke in the mid-term elections but it took a pasty little coward named Julian Assange and his organization and web site WikiLeaks to help the Obama administration keep their transparency pledge all with the help of another coward, Army Private First Class Bradley Manning.

It’s been reported that an estimated 1-million people had access to files that were downloaded by PFC Manning and handed over to Wikileaks. ONE-MILLION people and the government will now substantiate its previous claim under Clinton Assistant Attorney General that walls between agencies were necessary and now they attempted to encourage more cross-agency cooperation post-9/11. I smell a blame Bush mentality coming forward soon.

Mr. Obama doesn’t seem too concerned with the sudden information drop as he walked out on reporters when they began asking questions and let Robert Gibbs explain his way out of this mess.

And then we have Hillary Clinton who “deeply regrets” any disclosure of classified information due to whistle-blower website WikiLeaks’ releasing more than 250,000 U.S. State Department cables to media organizations.

“There is nothing brave about sabotaging peaceful relations between nations,” Clinton told reporters, saying that the document leaks ‘tear at the fabric’ of responsible government.

Clinton called the document leak an attack on the U.S. and the international community, and said that the US is taking aggressive steps to hold the leakers responsible.

Sarah Palin had an excellent response to the incompetent Obama administration concerning WikiLeaks and we concur. (Emphasis LCs)

First and foremost, what steps were taken to stop Wikileaks director Julian Assange from distributing this highly sensitive classified material especially after he had already published material not once but twice in the previous months? Assange is not a “journalist,” any more than the “editor” of al Qaeda’s new English-language magazine Inspire is a “journalist.” He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?

What if any diplomatic pressure was brought to bear on NATO, EU, and other allies to disrupt Wikileaks’ technical infrastructure? Did we use all the cyber tools at our disposal to permanently dismantle Wikileaks? Were individuals working for Wikileaks on these document leaks investigated? Shouldn’t they at least have had their financial assets frozen just as we do to individuals who provide material support for terrorist organizations?

Most importantly, serious questions must also be asked of the U.S. intelligence system. How was it possible that a 22-year-old Private First Class could get unrestricted access to so much highly sensitive information? And how was it possible that he could copy and distribute these files without anyone noticing that security was compromised?

The White House has now issued orders to federal departments and agencies asking them to take immediate steps to ensure that no more leaks like this happen again. It’s of course important that we do all we can to prevent similar massive document leaks in the future. But why did the White House not publish these orders after the first leak back in July? What explains this strange lack of urgency on their part?

Much of what was leaked had already been known in wide public circles but what has now happened to diplomacy and civil discourse that the Obama administration claims is so important? Look at the way Republicans were kept out of the legislative process and possibly un-Constitutional legislation is now law and was conjured up behind closed doors. Why would we be surprised that Hillary Clinton’s State Department has been exposed for their lack of diplomacy and childish comments about foreign leaders?

However, many of the leaks expose matters that should remain confidential and classified while only available to a few top officials. What has been exposed that may very well prove damaging?

1. In the cases of Yemen and Pakistan, this batch of leaks may do particular harm. The U.S. wants the cooperation of Yemeni strongman Ali Abdullah Saleh to carry out attacks on al Qaeda bases in that country, but Mr. Saleh wants to preserve the fiction that the attacks are his governments. The cables expose this fiction and now may jeopardize that cooperation, even as the terrorist threat from Yemen has increased.
2. The leaks also expose the U.S. attempts to safeguard the potential fuel for a nuclear weapon produced by Pakistan’s research reactor. This revelation will play as an affront to national sovereignty inside Pakistan and thus make cooperation that much more difficult to secure.
3. North Korea’s transfer of advanced missile technology to Iran may now have complicated the diplomatic ambitions and there is an incentive to hide the facts to hide the true nature of these rogue regimes.

But what about that “transparency” issue and how do we define what is exposed and who is allowed to expose it? We already know the Obama regime is incompetent and would rather prosecute copyright infringement cases instead of finding a way to stop Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

New laws should be written carefully to enable the prosecution of foreigners and aimed at provocateurs like Mr. Assange. At a minimum, the Administration should throw the book at those who do the leaking, including the option of the death penalty which may provide second thoughts to the casual spy or to leakers who fancy themselves as idealists.

Sending a letter to Mr. Assange has done little to stop his indiscriminate exposure of anything labeled secret that he can lay his hands on is a hostile act against a democracy that is fighting a war against forces bent on killing innocents.

Mr. Assange was allowed to obtain these documents via an employee of the United States government. We should ask ourselves who at the top is responsible and why are they not being held accountable by the media? Mr. Obama can walk out of conferences with reporters and Mrs. Clinton can tell us she “regrets” these massive leaks with thousands more to come. What does Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have to say? What steps have been taken since the first leaks were dropped on the Internet? Why weren’t steps taken to shut down servers to protect the interests of the United States?

Yes, WHY, indeed!

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

I always claimed Al Gore was a self-serving fraud but this was really easy. Anyone using Hollywood for money and movies to get elected and “prove” to the world that oceans would rise, polar bears would cease to exist in Manhattan and the temperatures would turn the Arctic into a mass desert filled with condos and swimming pools had to be questioned. And who better to use than children to scare with fiction so they would come home from school hysterical that the world was ending and we would all drown or fry like an egg on an Arizona sidewalk in August.

How unusual that Al Gore would visit Greece, a country bankrupt and looking for bailout money, to confess his wayward vision and misconceptions about global warming. Why not visit a Buddhist temple, grab a little cash and repent one’s sins? Mr. Gore enlightens the world with this:

“It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol.”

The benefits of ethanol are “trivial,” he added, but “It’s hard once such a program is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going.”

Oh yes, those pesky lobbyists who donate so much money to help their favorite politician get elected. Mr. Gore never met a lobbyist he didn’t like even if you had to attend fundraisers with Buddhists in California or the flim-flam Hollywood elites.

“One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for President.”

But Al, you wrote a book years ago about Mother Earth and the environment just after you invented the Internet. Exactly when did you have this epiphany?

Lobbyists swayed your thinking? You convinced yourself you were a science expert, won a Grammy award, the Nobel Peace Prize, served as a visiting professor at Middle Tennessee State University, Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, Fisk University, and the University of California, Los Angeles and all based on what? You fooled yourself and many people along the way and I ask, based on what expertise? Where did you learn so much about the environment and science Mr. Gore?

Was it at Vanderbilt University Divinity School? Was it on the night shift for The Tennessean as an investigative reporter? At Vanderbilt Law School? You spent some time at Harvard studying writing and then government but I just don’t see science in your background. I suppose it was only in your imaginative mind similar to thinking your “talent” carried you to that Internet thingy.

Does anyone remember “gasahol” from the 1970s? Democrat’s in Congress began subsidizing farmers way back then and anything else that could be claimed as a substitute for foreign oil. I tried that garbage in a brand new car and couldn’t restart the engine and sat helpless at the filling station island. I had the whole gasoline tank drained and used the real thing to get that new car going again.

The subsidies continued through the 1990s, with the ethanol lobby finding a sympathetic ear in Clinton EPA chief and Gore protégé Carol Browner, who in 1994 banned the gasoline additive MTBE and left ethanol as the only option under clean air laws. When the Senate split 50-50 on repealing this de facto mandate, then Vice President Gore cast the deciding vote for . . . ethanol. That served Mr. Gore well in the 2000 Democratic primaries against ethanol critic Bill Bradley.

Ethanol and Mr. Gore weren’t finished as “Big Ethanol” attached itself to the global warming panic that Mr. Gore did as much as anyone to foment. Even the new tax and spend Republicans formalized the mandate and increased subsidies in the 2005 and 2007 energy bills.

A funny thing happened on the way to the carbon emissions and global warming lie. The greenies turned on ethanol and other bio-fuels as they discovered they emitted more carbon than fossil fuels.

Now some Republicans are wringing their hands for ethanol and the subsidy machine. Major corn energy subsidies such as the 54-cent-per-gallon blenders credit expire at the end of the year, and Republican Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn are encouraging the new Congress to prove its fiscal bona fides by letting them die. Chuck Grassley (R., Ethanol er IA) responded this week on Twitter:

“WashPost reports 2 of my colleagues want sunset ethanol tax credit R they ready sunset tax subsidies oilANDgas enjoys?”

Maybe with Mr. Gore’s sudden realization about ethanol he will join Mssrs. DeMint and Coburn in a bi-partisan effort to bring truth about subsidies, ethanol, global warming and his make believe world.

Although we humans emit carbon when we exhale don’t stop breathing waiting for a full Al Gore conversion. Indeed!

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

Liberals think they are the smartest people in any room this are in. So let us examine the Liberal brain, what I call, the American Neo-Marxist Brain

Upon further examination Liberals are simply not that smart, it’s all in their make believe world. You know, what they call their elite world. Indeed!

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines: