Julian Assange Seeking First Sentence for Book

Via Twitter, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is seeking input for the first sentence of his book.

Here's what I came up with.

As the cell door closed behind me and I faced the cold, dank space, I began to contemplate the brunt of the awesome power of government, once it has descended to unleash its wrath.

Guess I better not give up my day job. What are your ideas?

< Reverse Logrolling In Our Time | Obama Appoints James Cole Deputy AG >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It was a dark and stormy night . . . :) (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 03:58:04 PM EST

    I wonder... (none / 0) (#11)
    by sj on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 04:28:15 PM EST
    ...how many of us came here to post that very comment :)

    It's Jeralyn's fault :) (none / 0) (#42)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 01:10:38 AM EST
    the cold, dank space,

    just triggers it, imo  ;) Plus, I'm of the Peanuts generation . . .


    Courtesy of Kafka: (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 04:14:54 PM EST
    Someone must have been telling lies about Julian A., he knew he had done nothing wrong but, one morning, he was arrested.

    Courtesy of Gregory David Roberts... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 09:47:04 PM EST
    "All it takes to harden a man's heart is a system of justice."

    Known to me courtesy of oculus...4 chapers in I'm all in kid:)

    Or maybe customized for Julian...All it takes to open a man's mind to anarchy is government.


    Freedom of speech (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by lausunu on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 04:27:49 PM EST
    and freedom of the press in the United States has become a myth that refuses to die, but the tentacles of powerful corporations and secretive government will continue to choke you as you are subsumed by the Borg.

    Once upon a time (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by kmblue on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 04:32:33 PM EST
    journalists questioned authority.

    I was flying high and free (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 07:16:12 PM EST
    'til those damn b*itches ratted me out.

    If you're channeling the former (none / 0) (#26)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 07:27:28 PM EST
    mayor of DC, Marion Barry, the phrase I think you're looking for is, "b!tch set me up."



    In Assange's world (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by chrisvee on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 08:22:46 PM EST
    of privilege, it's a "hornets' nest of radical feminism." :-)

    First line? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 08:15:43 PM EST
    "it's not like I drugged them, I just waited until they were sleeping."

    First Line? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by bocajeff on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 08:42:06 PM EST
    You think this is about something grand, but the reality is it's all about me. The fact that there are important issues here makes things better, but I have to be honest in saying that it's all about me. And if you don't believe me ask yourself, "Self, why would I twitter about what the opening line of my book shall be?"

    Hey, that sounds a lot like (none / 0) (#32)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 09:07:33 PM EST
    the opening lines of Obama's next book...

    Oh, and if you check the actual tweet, unless Assange is speaking of himself in the third person, it doesn't appear that he is the one who was tweeting for input.


    Ah (none / 0) (#43)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 07:55:12 AM EST
    But he DOES like to refer to himself in the third person.

    And, at least one clinical psychologist explains the phenomenon of referring to oneself in the third person:

    Elsa Ronningstam, associate clinical professor of psychology at Harvard Medical School and author of Identifying and Understanding the Narcissistic Personality: Referring to yourself in the third person creates distance between "I" and "he." So if you have an exaggerated view of how great you are, you could be using this distance to make yourself even bigger. Or, if you've achieved major success suddenly, using the third person could be a way to adjust to the bigger role that's been assigned to you. It's a way to enlarge yourself to fit that role.

    Hmmm..."exaggerated view of how great you are..."
    Sounds about right for Assange!


    What would you know about (3.50 / 2) (#52)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 09:52:58 AM EST
    Julian Assange?  Seriously.

    And I guess you missed this part of that quote you provided:

    Or, if you've achieved major success suddenly, using the third person could be a way to adjust to the bigger role that's been assigned to you. It's a way to enlarge yourself to fit that role.

    But, I'm guessing you stopped reading as soon as you got to the "gotcha" point you wanted to make about the evil Julian Assange...


    "Bigger role that's assigned to you" (none / 0) (#63)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 12:33:06 PM EST
    Seriously - what do YOU know about Julian Assange?

    He's a known hacker.  Look it up.
    He's an egomaniac.
    He likes sending creepy emails to barely legal girls and has a "weird" way of dealing with women.

    His role wasn't "assigned" to him.  He knowingly decided to print documents that a) he didn't vet and b)didn't care about the consequences.

    You'll have to forgive me if I don't buy into his "poor, poor, pitiful me" routine.  He made a choice to rightly or wrongly, take on world governments, so now he has to man up and face the consequences.  Did he honestly think there would be no repercussions?

    It is amusing how many will apologize for him at all costs, though.


    C'mon jb... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 01:08:38 PM EST
    it's not that hard to seperate Julian Assange the man and Julian Assange's lifes work, and to judge each accordingly.

    And it's also not unreasonable to doubt the validity of the criminal charges made against him, considering he's made an enemy of most every government in the world...there is a reason "frame up" is in our vocabulary ya know.  Not saying that is the case, only saying it is not a preposterous theory, all things considered.


    I really think our government could do (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 01:43:20 PM EST
    a better job of "framing up" Mr. Assange than getting some Swedish females to allege sexual misconduct.  

    Perhaps... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 01:47:12 PM EST
    though if it is a frame-up, what carries more stigma than a sex crime?  And he said/she said crime works well as a frame-up...hard to frame him for murder without a corpse.

    Oh, my (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 03:04:36 PM EST
    I would have thought someone on this blog would have a better understanding of rape crimes.

    And which has been (none / 0) (#77)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 04:57:53 PM EST
    disproven - there was no "frame up".

    Our story showed: first, that the Swedish police have found no evidence of any such dirty tricks (which would not surprise the conspiracy theorists); second, that in his interview with Swedish police on August 30, Assange himself never began to suggest that the allegations were any kind of dirty trick; third, that Assange's supporters in Stockholm had tried to find evidence and come up empty, concluding, as the Swedish WikiLeaks coordinator put it to us: "This is a normal police investigation. Let the police find out what actually happened. Of course, the enemies of WikiLeaks may try to use this, but it begins with the two women and Julian. It is not the CIA sending a woman in a short skirt."

    And by publishing our story, we achieved something: Julian Assange was forced to admit, in interviews with the London Times and with the BBC, that there is no evidence of a honeytrap. That matters very much. The news media don't want to report that -- there's a much better story in the dirty tricks. Some of the most active tweeters and the bloggers have not picked up on it -- they are much too happy with their conspiracy theories. The celebrity disciples like Bianca Jagger don't mention it. They simply move on to insist that there must be another conspiracy at work in the legal process. But the honeytrap story is dead: our story killed it. Whether or not Assange is guilty of a crime is a separate matter: the facts are not yet finally established, the law is not yet finally interpreted. At some point in this coming year, a court will decide that.

    It is my understanding no charges have (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 05:48:05 PM EST
    been filed against Assange re the Swedish females allegations.  Correct?

    And still...you continue to perpetuate (none / 0) (#75)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 03:44:42 PM EST
    the lies because you have only bothered to gather and relish in the dirt and not in what we know to be the facts.

    Assange has not been charged with anything.  Nothing.  Yet, you have decided he is guilty, and a pervert, to boot.  That is one bright, shiny object you've become infatuated with - good to know that the tactics of diversion DO work, eh.

    If you care, Assange decided there needed to be a way to anonymize information that was deliberately being kept out of the public view - a place where whistleblowers could deliver information without fear of reprisal.

    Well, it's true that that isn't working out too well for Bradley Manning, but we still don't have all the information on him - thanks in large part to the conflicting information Adrian Lamo is providing and which Wired and Kevin Paulsen are refusing to sort out, even though there is reason to believe they have the material that would.

    And, if facts relevant to this whole thing actually matter to you, Assange has left the decision about what to publish and report on to the media-partners he's working with.  He's of the opinion that the people who have immersed themselves in foreign affairs, who know the players, are better equipped to review the material, to redact the harmful stuff and put things in context.  He has sought the advice of the US government to redact sensitive information, and been rejected, so who actually cares about people's lives - Assange or the government?

    As far as I'm concerned, it is less than amusing - maybe even a little disturbing - how quickly you formed a negative judgment about Assange, and how you still, apparently, refuse to educate yourself on the less personal aspects of this whole matter.

    It seems like you have your nose pressed firmly up against the "tree" that the media and government want you to see, which has severely impeded your ability to see the "forest" of the larger issues and principles at stake.  I would have expected more in the way of critical thinking, analysis and objectivity from someone with a law degree, but then, I have been surrounded by lawyers every day for the last 30 years and can attest to how woefully lacking some of them are in that department.


    Sigh (3.50 / 2) (#79)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 05:12:11 PM EST
    I know it's hard to wipe clean those rose colored glasses and to keep the faith that our heroes don't have feet of clay, but sometimes reality must set in. I usually enjoy your comments, but you hero-worship of this person is just incomprehensible.  I would expect more from someone who is usually so in tune, but I think your judgment is clouded.  I won't resort to the personal attacks, as you have done, because I question your good judgment in this matter as well.

    Let's just say you think he's a hero and I think he's an attention grabbing wh0re who does not in any way stand for journalistic integrity.


    Rickey Henderson is in the Hall of Fame. (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 10:30:09 AM EST
    None of us know the guy... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 10:35:30 AM EST
    so he could be a great guy, he could be an arsehole...I don't see how that is of any importance really.  We know his work, and he's done some great work in my book.

    This is true, kdog... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 11:03:09 AM EST
    I am not concerned with the quirks of Assange's personality; what concerns me is disrupting the network of secrecy that has closed us out almost completely from what our government is doing in our names.  I don't understand why we should be complicit in the erosion of what rights we have left, or trust the government to always do the right thing, or why we should keep reacting with the fear they want us to feel so that we will be more compliant.

    We have been abandoned for the most part by a media that just won't ask the hard questions or confront those in power, and has chosen instead to become an arm of the government's media operation.  They rely on anonymous government sources to determine what we do and don't know, and have disseminated as truth much of what we now know to be lies in order to help the US go to war.  

    Others can focus on personality, on projecting traits and motives without much, if any basis for doing so in order to paint a negative and dangerous picture; I will continue to support those who seek the truth and the facts, who care about the principles at stake, and believe that those in power must be accountable for their actions.

    I don't have the sense that Assange isn't willing to be accountable for his actions, and his role in this whole thing, but I do think that he - as with everyone else - deserves to be held accountable based on the actual facts - which may or may not support criminal or civil charges that lead to trial -  and not on a presumption of guilt that is being fostered by a government that is supposed to uphold the principle of innocent-until-proven-guilty, and a media that is too lazy, to co-opted or too cowardly to point that out.


    I hold the same view... (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 11:33:07 AM EST
    regarding artists, many of whom are not the nicest human beings and have many flaws....I judge them by their work, since I will never know them as people, their work is all that concerns me.  Jerry Lee Lewis was a creepy craddle-robber...I still shake my tailfeather to "Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On".

    That being said, if he's a sexual assaulter I got no problem with him having his day in court to defend himself against those charges, as it should be...but I sure as hell ain't taking no system of justice's word for it, and that personal legal issue has nothing to do with Wikileaks and the work of Wikileaks.


    re "in my book." Would you like (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 10:42:56 AM EST
    us to propose a first sentence?

    Woody Guthrie... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 10:56:22 AM EST
    has me covered...

    I ain't got no home in this world anymore.


    My parents always taught me (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Catesby on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 09:19:43 PM EST
    to tell the truth.

    It appears they were radicals.

    Listen! Do you want to know a secret? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 10:06:54 PM EST
    Do you promise not to tell?  Closer ... let me whisper in your ear.

    Nice nice... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 10:19:42 PM EST
    or this....

    "Yes, uh huh, yeah, but these days it's all secrecy; no privacy
    Shoot first, that' s right... you know
    Bye bye."


    "I was born with the gift of laughter (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 12:05:16 AM EST
    and a sense that the world was mad.
    That was my only patrimony."

    "Acclaimed filmmaker and journalist" (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 08:03:37 AM EST
    "John Pilger, in a talk entitled 'Freedom Next Time' at the Socialism 2007 Conference in Chicago, had these observations to make:"

    ...could be Assanges first sentence.

    Followed by the quote:

    Edward Bernays, the so-called father of public relations, wrote about an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. He was referring to journalism, the media.

    That was almost 80 years ago, not long after corporate journalism was invented. It is a history few journalists talk about or know about, and it began with the arrival of corporate advertising. As the new corporations began taking over the press, something called "professional journalism" was invented. To attract big advertisers, the new corporate press had to appear respectable, pillars of the establishment-objective, impartial, balanced. The first schools of journalism were set up, and a mythology of liberal neutrality was spun around the professional journalist. The right to freedom of expression was associated with the new media and with the great corporations, and the whole thing was, as Robert McChesney put it so well, "entirely bogus".

    For what the public did not know was that in order to be professional, journalists had to ensure that news and opinion were dominated by official sources, and that has not changed. Go through the New York Times on any day, and check the sources of the main political stories-domestic and foreign-you'll find they're dominated by government and other established interests. That is the essence of professional journalism.
    One of my favorite stories about the Cold War concerns a group of Russian journalists who were touring the United States. On the final day of their visit, they were asked by the host for their impressions. "I have to tell you," said the spokesman, "that we were astonished to find after reading all the newspapers and watching TV day after day that all the opinions on all the vital issues are the same. To get that result in our country we send journalists to the gulag. We even tear out their fingernails. Here you don't have to do any of that. What is the secret?"

    What is the secret? It is a question seldom asked in newsrooms, in media colleges, in journalism journals, and yet the answer to that question is critical to the lives of millions of people. On August 24 (2006) the New York Times declared this in an editorial: "If we had known then what we know now the invasion if Iraq would have been stopped by a popular outcry." This amazing admission was saying, in effect, that journalists had betrayed the public by not doing their job and by accepting and amplifying and echoing the lies of Bush and his gang, instead of challenging them and exposing them. What the Times didn't say was that had that paper and the rest of the media exposed the lies, up to a million people might be alive today. That's the belief now of a number of senior establishment journalists. Few of them-they've spoken to me about it-few of them will say it in public.

    Ironically, I began to understand how censorship worked in so-called free societies when I reported from totalitarian societies. During the 1970s I filmed secretly in Czechoslovakia, then a Stalinist dictatorship. I interviewed members of the dissident group Charter 77, including the novelist Zdener Urbanek, and this is what he told me. "In dictatorships we are more fortunate that you in the West in one respect. We believe nothing of what we read in the newspapers and nothing of what we watch on television, because we know its propaganda and lies.

    Unlike you in the West, we've learned to look behind the propaganda and to read between the lines, and unlike you, we know that the real truth is always subversive."

    ...followed by:

    "WikiLeaks is the inevitable response to propaganda and unseen lies, and is responsible journalism of the kind the NYT should have practiced. Had they done so there would be no need for WikiLeaks."

    been a long time (none / 0) (#49)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 09:28:08 AM EST
    since poets were the unacknowledged legislators of the world - now we have Tom Friedman & the two Davids, Broder & Brooks

    I'd go with a personal touch... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by mexboy on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 08:46:24 AM EST

    It wasn't my choice to become a revolutionary, but the bastards left me no choice.

    Re :Secrecy (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 10:47:11 AM EST
    Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice.

    Lord Acton

    How about... (2.00 / 1) (#6)
    by diogenes on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 04:18:24 PM EST
    How about, "Daniel Ellsburg released the Pentagon Papers hiding how America entered the Vietnam War but withheld the diplomatic secret documents he had so as to not impede peace efforts.  I, Julian Assange, am of superior moral wisdom and release every secret in the world."

    the lie that will not die (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by kmblue on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 04:20:15 PM EST
    he has not released the vast majority of the State Department docs.  Those that have been released were vetted by the New York Times, the Wash Post, etc.

    Do some reading before you run your keyboard.


    creative take on reality (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 08:10:29 PM EST
    you have there.  If he didn't release some part of those documents it was only because they were boring and wouldn't hurt anyone.  
    This is not the second coming of the Pentagon Papers.  This is simply about a self aggrandizing fool to whom national security is less important than his own image of himself as a brave crusader.

    It's a fact (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by kmblue on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 08:07:37 AM EST
    that all the cables have not been released, and those that have been released have been vetted by the various publishers.

    The rest of your post, T in Snow (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by kmblue on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 08:08:39 AM EST
    is guessing and mind reading.  Nice talent.  If you had it.

    time will tell (2.00 / 1) (#74)
    by diogenes on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 03:26:53 PM EST
    There are blackmail threats floating around to "release everything" if something happens to Assange.  Heck, if this guy stops getting the oxygen of publicity he'll release more stuff for years to come.  Are you saying the other stuff will NEVER be released because of your great confidence in the Ellsberg-like moral character of Julian Assange?

    You might want to tell that (none / 0) (#78)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 05:02:42 PM EST
    to The Guardian, where in numerous places they report that 250,000 diplomatic cables were released.

    Here's one example:

    For those with neither the time nor inclination to wade through all 251,287 of the diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, a computer nerd called Fabrice has come up with a solution: HaikuLeaks, a program which has condensed them down to three lines of five, seven and five syllables respectively in Japanese poem style.

    Or try this one:

    Use our interactive guide to discover what has been revealed in the leak of 250,000 US diplomatic cables. Mouse over the map below to find key stories and a selection of original documents by country, subject or people. Click on red dots for latest stories.

    But was does The Guardian know?  They are just central to this story....


    Anyone who has actually been (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 06:18:53 PM EST
    following this story knows that Assange did release the documents to Wikileaks' media partners, for the reasons I provided: that the people/reporters actually working in the areas of foreign policy, those who know the parties and players involved, would be better able to assess, put into context and redact the sensitive information to reduce the risk of harm to others.

    This is information that has been available for some time, if you had ever bothered to take the time to educate yourself.

    And of the 250,000+ cables that have been turned over to the media partners, Assange and Wikileaks have posted the cables only AFTER the media partners have written about them.

    Julian Assange is not my hero; what matters to me is that people be able to assess the situation based on the facts, and not on the propaganda being disseminated by the media at the request of the government.

    When Joe Biden comes out one day to say that there has been little to no damage as a result of the cables released, and the next day is on every talking heads show describing Assange as a high-tech terrorist, something is amiss.

    And Biden is not the only one who has said that the damage has been minimal.

    You would know this if you were at all interested in the truth, but it's obvious that you aren't.  You have decided that Assange is evil personified, that Glenn Greenwald is off his rocker, that I am wearing rose-colored glasses; the government would be thrilled with your rush to judgment, but if I were you, I would be embarrassed to keep making claims that are easily debunked.

    Your focus on Assange-the-person obscures the reality that your government is working in the dark, in secret and doesn't think you or I or anyone deserve to know what they're doing, and they certainly don't want to be held to account for it.  

    But, hey, as long as you're busy vilifying Julian Assange, the government can just keep shredding the Constitution - and when you ask, "why didn't anyone DO anything about this?" maybe someone will remind you that someone tried.


    There is no reason... (none / 0) (#9)
    by sj on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 04:26:30 PM EST
    ... for he, himself, to repeat that lie.

    What's your reason?


    I don't understand sj (none / 0) (#12)
    by kmblue on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 04:28:40 PM EST
    but that's okay, because I was replying to diogenes.

    so was I :) (none / 0) (#16)
    by sj on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 05:05:01 PM EST
    I should use fewer personal pronouns and more personal names.  The "he, himself" should have been "Assange, himself"

    How about (2.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 09:30:15 AM EST
    I am sorry that the harm I have done far out weighs the bit of good I may have done.

    No.... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 09:38:43 AM EST
    he shouldn't plagiarize what obama or junior bush would say if either of them ever manned up.

    So he shouldn't tell the truth (2.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 10:03:47 AM EST
    because you think Obama and Bush have caused harm?

    Both Bush and Obama were duly elected by the people and governed with their permission. They were also funded and agreed with by a Congress of the people and a Court legally appointed.

    Assange received stolen goods and has used them for his benefit. And yes, people will die because of his actions and the country will be harmed.


    We all eagerly await your case (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 10:15:11 AM EST
    that the actions of the government have not resulted in the deaths of many, and that those actions have not harmed the country.

    For me, personally, I find the steady and deliberate erosion of long-standing democratic principles and constitutional rights that result when people allow the government to operate in total secrecy and without accountability to be more harmful than exposing these things.

    There simply cannot be an argument that to seek the truth now would be more harmful than closing our eyes to it.

    If not now, when?  


    Logic of that argument (none / 0) (#73)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 03:07:52 PM EST
    always escapes me -- that it cannot be a crime because the government already did it, too.

    If you are looking for (2.00 / 1) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 04:35:29 PM EST
    logic then I suggest you look else where.

    Tracy.... Perhaps you need to train the Demos better.... They voted to turn the military loose per Bush's desires.

    Fact is... Assange has hamstrung our intelligence agencies and our diplomats.


    Yes, Tracy (none / 0) (#82)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 09:14:11 PM EST
    the Democrats are to blame because they trusted Bush, unlike their Republican collegues. ;-)

    Yes they are (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 31, 2010 at 09:57:48 AM EST
    I mean them being all wise and knowing they should have stopped the evileeee Bush in his tracks.

    Thanks for demonstrating (none / 0) (#85)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Dec 31, 2010 at 10:18:22 AM EST
    you're still bent on kissing Bush's behind after he's been out of office for almost 2 years.  :-)

    And you're not giving credit (none / 0) (#86)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Dec 31, 2010 at 11:02:39 AM EST
    where credit is due, to boot:

    WASHINGTON -- President Bush today criticized some lawmakers for not giving his new Iraq plan a chance to succeed while his new defense secretary said any Congressional resolution opposing an increase in troops for Iraq "emboldens the enemy."

    The Senate is expected to vote as early as next week on several bipartisan resolutions opposing Bush's plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq, including one that calls the new policy "not in the national interest."

    Bush, saying "I am the decision-maker," spoke to reporters at the Oval Office while meeting with senior military advisers.

    "I've picked the plan that I think is most likely to succeed," Bush said.

    Here you are, trying to tell us that the Democrats were using Bush as a tool.

    What a low blow you tried to score.  That reveals so much about you, PPJ.


    Blame?? (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 31, 2010 at 07:56:34 PM EST
    Just facts. The Demos were involved totally and you cannot hide from that

    For once, I have to agree with you, PPJ (none / 0) (#88)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Dec 31, 2010 at 08:59:14 PM EST
    especially in 2008:

    From crooksandliars(dot)com:

    By early 2008 when a barrel of oil reached $127, President Bush's impotence in the face of the stratospheric - and uninterrupted - rise in gas prices reached comic proportions. Asked by a reporter on February 28, 2008 about the looming arrival of $4 gas, Bush the former oil man did what comes naturally and played dumb:

        Q What's your advice to the average American who is hurting now, facing the prospect of $4 a gallon gasoline, a lot of people facing --

        THE PRESIDENT: Wait, what did you just say? You're predicting $4 a gallon gasoline?

        Q A number of analysts are predicting --

        THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yeah?

        Q -- $4 a gallon gasoline this spring when they reformulate.

        THE PRESIDENT: That's interesting. I hadn't heard that.

    Click Me



    Heh, heh ... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 08:01:26 AM EST
    If you are looking for logic then I suggest you look else where.
     by jimakaPPJ



    It was the best of times, it was the worst of time (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dan the Man on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 04:04:41 PM EST
    s, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

    that is my least favorite (none / 0) (#8)
    by CST on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 04:22:48 PM EST
    beginning to a book ever.

    Honestly, that writing style made me consider it one of worst books I've ever read, despite having a really good plot.

    Although it didn't bother me with Great Expectations, which I liked, despite the fact that the plot wasn't as good.


    No good deed goes unpunished, (none / 0) (#3)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 04:05:50 PM EST
    especially when it takes ordinary citizens to the dark and corrupt places where their "democratic and free" government, and the powerful people who run it, operate without accountability or recourse or fear...until that power is threatened.

    [But, "it was a dark and stormy night" was my first choice!]

    They (none / 0) (#5)
    by kmblue on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 04:18:00 PM EST
    can't handle the truth.

    If my name were Bob Woodward (none / 0) (#13)
    by kmblue on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 04:30:53 PM EST
    I wouldn't be vilified.

    The only thing we have to fear... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dadler on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 04:42:34 PM EST
    ...is the fear of knowing the truth.

    Stealing from Josh Billings (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 05:49:28 PM EST
    Honesty is the rarest wealth anyone can possess, and yet all the honesty in the world ain't lawful tender for a loaf of bread....or your bail :)

    Oh, that kind of ... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 06:13:46 PM EST

    here you go, Julian (none / 0) (#19)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 06:19:31 PM EST
    Sweden (none / 0) (#20)
    by chrisvee on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 06:20:24 PM EST
    is the Saudi Arabia of feminism.

    isn't Saudi Arabia (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 06:27:13 PM EST
    the Saudi Arabia of feminism?

    Good question (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by chrisvee on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 08:19:47 PM EST
    We'll have to ask Mr. Assange to explain his remark in his book. :-)

    Let me tell you about telling the truth. (none / 0) (#22)
    by robotalk on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 06:32:14 PM EST
    What a nightmare.

    First Line (none / 0) (#23)
    by msobel on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 06:43:06 PM EST
    I was locked in the cell, where Oscar Wilde was imprisoned for the love that dare not speak its name, for daring to speak the truth that must not be spoken.

    'A messenger brought a message (none / 0) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 07:05:14 PM EST
    but all eyes were averted from the message in favor of the messenger; not because of the messenger's beauty but because of the ugliness of the message--its truth and consequences are too much to share or bear.'

    Nabokov... (none / 0) (#36)
    by desertswine on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 10:06:55 PM EST

    Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta.

    This has nothing to do with Assange, it's just a gorgeous opening.

    This also has nothing to do w/Assange. (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 10:27:01 PM EST
    But, I was surprised to read Saul Bellow did not respect Nabokov as a writer.

    I believe it was a mutual dislike... (none / 0) (#41)
    by desertswine on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 12:51:00 AM EST
    Nabokov thought Bellow a miserable mediocrity. But he didn't like anybody much. Nabokov was rude in his criticism.

    "When Zarathustra was thirty years old, (none / 0) (#40)
    by tigercourse on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 12:36:13 AM EST
    he left his home and the lake of his home and went into the mountains". He just looks like someone who has read a bunch of Nietzsche.

    Call me grist male (none / 0) (#48)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 08:51:55 AM EST

    Maybe he'll start with a quote variation? (none / 0) (#83)
    by EL seattle on Fri Dec 31, 2010 at 04:28:52 AM EST
    "I didn't do it, nobody saw me - you can't prove anything."