leaky

finally a post about richard leakey... well no, he wasn't a very meticulous scientist. allthough he did have the creativity to look at the right place, that might well have been a result to classified acces to definite informations..

I have been taking some more peeks at the cables, and it feels like a responsability to write about the things. sometimes i can't even put a finger on why they make me think certain things, about a conspiracy. like this or like that.

it's a bit like the elections in ivory coast i guess, notwithstanding hillarys patronage, they had to scrap the result in the 7 northern (muslim? well usually northern equals muslim in westafrica) provinces.

so its all in the balance of power. to put it openly, i am not even against it. it may be the result of propaganda, but i am under the impression that in the 21st (and late 20th probably) century so far muslims are safer under christians then the other way around.

nothing absolute, just a development gap i am sure. before another 400 or so years, there wasn't the slightest difference, and that we have gbagbo may well be a result of that circumstance.

that besides gbagbo is a bit of a despot i think, but i am not sure, it's just that every westafrican longstanding leader falls into that category with me. so maybe the west is betting on the wrong horse. in the long run then. in the medium term i think their contracts will be pretty safe, with him needing extra training of security troops etc. now.

actually i even think of him as probably corrupt, however if it sticks to what i already mentioned, bussiness contracts with the western multinationals, well then it isn't as bad as it can get.

some dark place in my memory suggests otherwise, but i will not be trying to compile a short history and impression of that nation. i am trying to write about the leaked cables.

i find it hard to say the right thing, for one thing it is quite a heap even if only 667 had been released yesterday, for another thing it touches on very many very relevant subjects.
(although perhaps some of them don't deserve to feature so prominently)

a third problem is i can deduce some things, i can guess a few more, and my instinct tells me there is something the matter about still more, but doubts allways remain.

people have their personal biases to name one, some of these biases you even need to get higher up in this world. (and i think that is what makes politics so stupid sometimes).

economy to name one, you have to have a holy belief in economy and it's 'laws' (more or less complicated versions of " i want more") to talk all day as if it makes a difference if you rule capitalist or good.

i have a personal bias against people invoking 'economics' as a result. so even my observation could be clouded by bias.

nonetheless i have fought bias my life long and i am aware that such is helpfull.

so the biggest problem is the mass of material, i read through a doc. or 2 or 3 or 4. and in the march i have my ideas, and sometimes analyses.(meaning i could support the idea by eg. quoting from the document) the problem is even bigger because i dont trust the documents very much let alone completely, so perhaps it is interesting to touch on that.

i am not going to generalise , i don't even have the tools for it;) but every document i have seen so far received some personal attention, with the view of not telling to much, not confronting the existing ideas in the usian military, not giving an ineffective impression (allthough i think usia has quite some smart diplomats as a result of reading it)

so on the first desk it may be selfcensored, partly from reports that might be censored in someone or somewhats interesses, next it goes somewhere, to a usian ministry usually, and it gets cleared(censored) for sipnet.

perhaps it got screened in between, condoleeza you could bother with some awfull detail about woman, (she definitily hated it), but clinton?

(not sure if it worked like that but you get the idea)

there are cases that intelligence services go for the censored versions of the storys. and there are cases that usian diplomats suffer from wishfull thinking themselves.
all in all it makes a credible impression as huge pile or worked documents that , and that is the real historical point of them) made their impact , in this version or a (slightly) more elaborate, informative, dirty, one.

some documents also appear as credible as complete fabrications. one stood out, but i havent memorised wich one. probably i didnt read it as thoroughly, if i think, oh crap, this is crap and the next paragraph i think,... only crap. i rather go for the next doc then annoy myself more.

ok those are subjects i have seen crapped about more then this so np. is what i think than. it's a bit like reading the commercial newsoutlets (confirming that same thing so the check is pretty much in that i know the newsstory didn't hold ).

to give a current example, initial reporting mentioned that the korea incident followed on usian exercises, well not anymore , not after 1 day or so after the incident. then all news got censored.

so if i would see a doc that would confirm that circumstance,(there was no usian exercise going) i know it is crap.

however that a part of a document serves to convince the lower echolonned readers, doesnt mean the rest of it could not be carrying a kernel of reality somewhere.

yes i stay cynical for a long time before jumping into conclusions.

next many of them appear rather genuine. perhaps doctored, but the conversation took place, and ,although cleared, some of the detail was really mentioned. (i think not allways all)

i think i saw one that was really from the hand of clinton. well a thing like that is very fascinating to begin with. whats the personality as a professional, do i see a personal approach?

it left an ok impression. smart, rather some personal focus, but perhaps a bit stubborn, you don't get what you want by repeating it , even to your servants.

in that sense she should try to be a tad more flexible. won't be easy, it is the hardest thing there is, changing yourself, and her ways have amongst things led to the succes of obama getting elected. she deserves the plume there.

that besides, it is just my impression, it is well possible that a more pragmatical attitude is quite unworkable in the usian political scene.

however i wouldn't favour that to extend into my correspondence,

you may wonder if it is coincedence, the army and as a result much of the secret services (and by extension the diplomatical corps) are a typical republican thing (the nuke m mentality is, selling guns is, and most of the recent presidents were, there is why.)

so you have to account they will portray hillary in a less favourable light then would the original author have been mccain. (i dont think palin would have the quality).

gosh it might even be funny, oh well, she must have some merits, being smarter and more human then huckabee for one thing is something that is not so hard to do.

(i thought butchers were not allowed even in usian jury's, man can you be wrong)

i acknowledge i think he is a psychopath for coming up with nothing more creative and constructive then he did, worse even, a sociopath.

there's so many observations to make, israel eg. so far is remarkably absent, oh yes there is one i read, an assesment of how eagerly israel would attack iran somewhat on their own iniative.

must say usia shows some restraint, no matter they appear to leave the option to support that open. take me litterally, some restraint is some restraint, not hardly any, not a lot, but it means they are not riding their chairs for exceitement by the idea, and so maybe the iranians and the world will be spared this next greatwar project.

on some occasions it gets pretty sinister. these usually involve armstrade, when armstradedeals are subsubject (meaning they are majorly part of the subject but usually indicated before explicated, and touched upon before described precisely) it can get really very sinister.

to be sure about if armstrade and war are not regarded an asset with it's own value i'd have to read a bit more. and to erase the impression it should actually be rather different. meaning

i think it is sinister, when i read parts with armstrades in (or left out) i get uncanny. sometimes i think it is selling arms and faring war for the sake of the industry and that diplomacy is for the sake of that as well. such parts can be real challenges, especially when the impression is strong but the indications very meagre.(1)

"reading between the lines" .

i allways considered it an art, and childoff i am used that the socalled free media, had no other means to express. as a result i assume some diplomats and politicians also have the capacity to write and read between the lines.

uncanny.

i get back on topic soon, perhaps ill take notes and give examples to all in my next post.
however i am quite used to working with no archive but my mind, it is a big step.

(1) it is worth spending a few words to elaborate on this. in some cases i have the impression all of it is luggage, except the most farfetched implications of 'reading between the lines' and that they indicate they are actually plotting wars / armed violence. even in documents that stress democracy etc. a lot, so that it would mean they are consciously faking such messages, and that a (probably small?) part of recipients would still, i can't think of another expression, find pervers pleasure.

i hope i am paranoid and oversensitive there. The picture of an all dominant political entity (for example they are the boss of the EU and the nations therein) with at least some good intentions (and trying to trade arms) is less scary then this. will try and pay attention.