Sarah Palin Now Thinks Julian Assange Is A Really Nifty Guy

from the the-enemy-of-my-enemy dept

While many support the idea of Wikileaks, many now worry that the organization’s supposed goal of total transparency often plays second fiddle to Julian Assange’s ego and the group’s often inconsistent behavior. But whatever you think of Assange as a human being, it’s important to remember that the group wouldn’t be necessary if the established media actually did its job. Groups like Wikileaks are just symptoms of a broader disease: the larger media’s shift to banal infotainment, and the failure of these giant media conglomerates to hold companies and governments accountable to the truth.

That said, it’s becoming downright comedic to watch Assange, Wikileaks and whistleblowers become increasingly vilified or deified — depending entirely on what’s being said, who it’s being said about, or what color-coded partisan jumpsuit you’re wearing.

For example, Assange was a hero to Democrats after exposing government misdeeds during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but was demonized incessantly in the wake of the DNC hack (to the point where the actual data revealed was thoroughly ignored). Similarly, Assange was derided by Republicans as the very worst sort of scoundrel for the better part of the last decade, a position that has, well, softened in the wake of the Clinton campaign-crippling DNC hack. After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, for now, right?

In fact Assange has bizarrely become a temporary folk hero to many of the same folks that wanted his head on a pike just a few months ago. Sarah Palin, for example, in 2010 got very close to advocating that Assange be hunted down and killed, likening him to an “anti-American operative with blood on his hands.” That position was forged, in part, after Wikileaks leaked Palin’s Yahoo e-mails back in 2008 after a hacker gained access to the Alaskan government documents Palin had been storing on a private server.

This week, however, Palin took to Twitter and Facebook to lavish praise on Assange after the Wikileaks founder was interviewed on Fox News, an outlet that has also, on occasion, advocated that Assange be put to death. Apparently, that’s all water under the bridge now:

Palin took things even further over on Facebook, where she not only apologized for her past comments on Assange, but actually encouraged people to go watch the “Snowden” movie:

“Exposing the truth re: the Left having been oh-so-guilty of atrocious actions and attitudes of which they’ve falsely accused others. The media collusion that hid what many on the Left have been supporting is shocking. This important information that finally opened people’s eyes to democrat candidates and operatives would not have been exposed were it not for Julian Assange. I apologize for condemning Assange when he published my infamous (and proven noncontroversial, relatively boring) emails years ago.

ps. If you get the chance, catch the movie “Snowden.” That movie and Hannity’s interview tonight are quite enlightening.”

For the record she didn’t “condemn” Assange, she suggested he be treated like al Qaeda and Taliban leaders (read: violence). And while it’s nice that Palin now sees (or pretends to see) that her past anti-whistleblower positions were violently misguided, it’s unlikely that this is any kind of lasting sea change. After all, the real message being sent here is that whistleblowers and leakers are the very worst sort of villains when they’re saying things we don’t want to hear, but they’re heroes of the highest order when they leak data that damages our enemies or props up the weekly partisan narrative du jour.

And while this positional flip flop on a certain front is incredibly entertaining in a David Lynch sort of way, transparency and truth don’t work that way. While leaking organizations and whistleblowers themselves are certainly fallible, the truths they reveal are non-negotiable, and don’t care about partisan patty cake. In other words, these same folks suddenly lavishing praise on whistleblowers now because it’s tactically convenient, will be back arguing for assassination by drone strike the moment the next whistleblower reveals truths they’d prefer remain hidden.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: wikileaks

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Sarah Palin Now Thinks Julian Assange Is A Really Nifty Guy”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Dimwits like you are a dime a dozen, if that is what you get out of that quote form Joseph De Maitre, then you are dumb as a box of rocks.

Let me break it down for you simpletons. The things that happen to a single individual has nothing to do with what an entire nation decides to do. The scopes are so vastly different that they are not comparable in the way he stated it does. An individual with Wisdom will directly understand what the quote means and not go nut fundie over the message it is sending.

The quote directly lets everyone know that a nations citizens are responsible for their governments. I am more than well aware there are many people that lack these fundamental insights which is why I posted the quote. And boy did it snare a pair of ignorants!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Whether my wisdom is actually superior or not can hardly be proven on that alone.

But it is pretty clear they completely misunderstood the quote. I am certain they have the knowledge and the intellect, they just failed having the wisdom to understand it. It does not necessarily mean they lack all wisdom, just that they are not friends because they skipped using before they posted. A person does not have to be friendly with something to obtain its insights, but it would be helpful if they were friendly with them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

I wanted to add but did not in the other post.

Being ignorant was not meant to be derogatory even though it does look that way. Ignorance is just a generic term to describe that someone does not understand or know.

In this case they are ignorant of the meaning behind that quote. Though you may choose to take it as and insult, I care not… just wanted to make that declaration.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Gotta love those instant assumptions, light speed stereotyping and general overall resulting silliness.

I’m quite certain that name calling is the correct way to discuss such matters. Why bother even attempting to understand what others might have to say, they are morans. Amirite?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

“Why bother even attempting to understand what others might have to say, they are morans. Amirite?”

But it was okay for him to not understand me or that quote? And not only that, he completely misconstrued it to bash the quote?

That seems like a double standard to me. We all make mistakes, better to accept them, learn from them, and move on.

“I’m quite certain that name calling is the correct way to discuss such matters.”

Ah yes, the ever liberal its okay for us to insult you, but you cannot insult us retort. An insult is an insult, it was pretty clear he was intentionally insulting in his remark. I was just spine enough to directly insult him in response. Another double standard many people seem to have around here. If you are going to be condescending to someone, it is insulting, don’t do it and the whine when you get it back.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

” liberal its okay for us to insult you, but you cannot insult us retort.”

Ok kids, pay attention now, because only liberals do this.

Oh, I see now what you were talking about .. all non-liberals would never call anyone a name and if they did, they would certainly not object to being called a name in return. Wow, liberals are such assholes.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

It was intended as an exasperated euphemism. But I appreciate your weak efforts to “TROLL” me on my syntax.

AND… well the term ‘troll’ is about as useless as calling someone a racist or a terrorist now. So over used their meanings have been diluted to the extent that you cannot be taken seriously when used.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“Palin took things even further over on Facebook, where she not only apologized for her past comments on Assange, but actually encouraged people to go watch the “Snowden” movie:”

Reading the article is not something you feel strongly about is it?

Karl did the work for you already!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

I have however been saying it since 2010 when the Manning leaks brought them to my attention.

What is your opinion on the sharing of classified information?

As Trump was just a lesser evil., I’m curious to know, since Hillary’s emails were always front and center of nearly every one of his speeches.

Since Trump was a lesser evil, and also supported Wikileaks (who shared unredacted classified information, you know, that kind that "puts lives in danger"), I’m wondering if that had something to do with your opinion.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Chelsea Manning

Chelsea committed a crime and deserves punishment, same goes for Snowden. The problem is the punishment given to Chelsea and awaiting Snowden do not fit the crime nor take into consideration the motives behind their actions.

Hilary’s motives were taken into consideration so much that she even avoided prosecution yet Chelsea and Snowden motives are ignored and have the law book thrown at them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Chelsea Manning

So then we should hunt, catch, and prosecute those who leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks to the fullest extent of the law then! It isn’t as if the methods used to get these emails were legal – apparently there was some piss poor opsec that someone took advantage of.

I have yet to hear one single person calling for the heads of those hackers, though. I wonder why not?

Almost Anonymous (profile) says:

Re: Re: Chelsea Manning

“Chelsea committed a crime and deserves punishment, same goes for Snowden.”

Thanks Judge Dredd, for laying that down for us. But some of us actually think a person is innocent until proven guilty.

On a more serious note, I personally believe that Snowden felt that he was committing crimes daily by just doing his job, which included illegal spying on the American public. So he was in an impossible position of “shut up and continue breaking the law” or “speak up and break the law (but supposed to be protected by whistleblower protections that have never actually worked for anyone)”.

David says:

Re: Re: Re: Chelsea Manning

Uh, you can always just quit your job if it’s illegal. Sure, you are likely to never get a government job afterwards due to the Intelligence Community’s retaliation (at least if you mention your reason of quitting to anybody), but at least they are somewhat unlikely to send a killer after you.

Extrajudicial killings are not for whistleblowers though if you listen to the likes of Hayden and Clapper, you wouldn’t know. But it’s not like they would have the power… Ok, they do. But have you heard of any person in danger of whistleblowing they had assassinated in their impressive set of tortured, illegally incarcerated and killed persons?

You haven’t heard? See, that’s how effective they are. If only that cowardly Snowden hadn’t fled the country before one could talk things over calmly with him and persuade him to be as silent as a grave…

John Cressman (profile) says:

Funny how this is...

I do actually find it amusing how Assange is either villian or a hero, depending on what he releases.

My only issue with releases hacked emails or other material is if it gets people killed.

Otherwise, there are too many secrets.

I WOULD like to see him release some Russian or Chinese emails though… of course, a week later he WOULD be hunted down and killed.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Funny how this is...

“My only issue with releases hacked emails or other material is if it gets people killed.”

How so? All the government would need to do is time unnecessary secrets to people in at risk situations to shut a person like you down.

The more we rely on secrets to exist the less likely are going to last. We cannot afford to tolerate a government of secrets and remain free people.

aldestrawk (profile) says:

Trump on Wikileaks

Here is Trump’s take on Wikileaks (circa 2010). This is from banter before an actual interview with Brian Kilmead on the “Kilmead and Friends” radio show. Kilmead is part of Fox and Friends on the Fox TV network. Kilmead mentions another guest will talk about Wikileaks. Trump says (about Wikileaks) “I think it is disgraceful. I think there should be, like, death penalty or something.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Trump on Wikileaks

Yea, I really wished the MSM would do their damn jobs and dredge this shit up for all to see. I see the MSM and being generally on the left, but they still regularly drop the ball on outting some of the really fucking terrible shit the right does as well. I cannot figure out if they are seriously nuts, trolling, or just fucking inept as hell?

I really hate hypocrisy more than anything.

Thad (user link) says:

Re: Re: Trump on Wikileaks

Yea, I really wished the MSM would do their damn jobs and dredge this shit up for all to see.

Well, they kinda have; that clip of him talking on the Howard Stern show about how he supported the war in Iraq was everywhere, and he just kept on denying it. I think the sheer amount of bullshit he spouts makes it impossible to keep up.

That said, yes, I absolutely agree that the news media should consider pointing out previous contradictory statements by politicians as a major part of its job. The Daily Show’s been on that for close to 20 years now (and despite its obvious liberal leanings it’s done a pretty solid job of pointing out Democrats’ hypocrisy too; I’m a Bernie supporter but they were right to call him out for some of the anti-immigrant stuff he said on Lou Dobbs).

I think it’s valuable for us to always ask "Would I still feel this way if the shoe were on the other foot?" Right is right and wrong is wrong; consistency is important.

I never thought Assange was a hero, but I’ve always thought he’s done some valuable work. That hasn’t changed.

I’ve always been skeptical of the government, and never accepted "because the CIA says so" as proof enough of a claim’s truth. That hasn’t changed. (I think it’s likelier than not that the attacks came from Russia, and that the Russian government knew about them. But that’s a lot different from saying it’s been proven.)

I have my beliefs, and they’re strong. But I try to keep them based on facts, not partisanship.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Trump on Wikileaks

Just remember, MSM is owned and operated by corporations .. a declining number of them own an increasing number of outlets. Corporations have one goal and one goal only. This leads to the inevitable corruption of the so called news feed, although it does make the propaganda folk’s jobs a bit easier.

Doug says:

Ad hominem

Did you really just open the article with a character attack on Assange? With no citations? Jeez, grow up. If you wanna accuse the guy of being egotistical or whatever, either explicitly make the claim yourself or cite someone who does. Otherwise you come across like a passive aggressive attack dog.

And it’s off-topic anyway. Why attack the character of Assange when the article is about Palin? What nonsense.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Ad hominem

As someone who has known Assange since he was a 15yr old teen he is still to this day a narcissistic twat who thinks the world owes him a favour.

Yes Wikileaks is overall a good thing, just Assange didn’t actually incubate or start the idea behind it, he’s just the only one who had the ego to be front and centre (no-one else wanted to for good reasons).

Basically he has NEVER grown up from that smartass teenage stage where he thought he was the centre of the universe and a great cracker of code… newsflash – he wasn’t.

David says:

Re: Re: Re: Ad hominem

It’s not “maturing” to figure out the job you have been cut out for.

I probably would wish to have a different person for this job, but as long as any such a different person does not wish to serve that job, that’s not more than wishful thinking.

Should Wikileaks be faceless? For some things, it’s good to have someone actually say them.

My_Name_Here says:

Julian Assange has shown himself in the last few years to be everything that he supposedly despised. He has a major agenda, he has a hit list, and he’s working hard to hit those targets.

He blames Obama and Hillary Clinton for his current “position”, even though reality says otherwise. He’s hiding in an Embassy because he fears getting send to Sweden would somehow get him extradited to the US – ignoring the fact that the UK has a strong extradition treaty with the US. There is no reason for any Swedish meatball story, the US and the UK could have had him cuffed and stuffed into a plane while he was arguing the case in the UK. Julian’s embassy prison is of his own making. That time has made him a very vengeful person.

His beliefs seem to run like this: If Hillary gets elected, then he has to stay in the Embassy for another 4 years or go to Sweden and face the music, which he feels would be a one way trip to a Guantanamo Bay cell. With a Republican in the office he has a better chance of avoiding this fate, and could come out of the Embassy without too much fear. With Trump in the office, I suspect he’s thinking something more like Presidential Advisor job. Based on what Trump has said, this is entirely possible.

So Assange had plenty of motivation to find dirty on the Democrats and to ignore or even bury anything about the Republicans. Trump, his family, and his companies have so many skeletons in their closets that they had to build an extension on the house, so to speak. Not even a mumble out of Wikileaks. Obama? Huge cash rewards offered.

If you can’t see it, you need to stand back a little further. Julian is an opportunist and a player, but he has also caged himself and really needs to get out of there to be effective. His motivations are abundantly clear and his actions speak for themselves.

He’s no more honest at this point than Fox News.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...