Former Obama Advisor Says Wikileaks Is Wonderful For The US Government

from the if-only-he-would-tell-Obama-that dept

Mon, Jun 13th 2011 5:35am — Mike Masnick

While the White House seems to be doing whatever it possibly can to try to file charges against folks involved in Wikileaks, a former Obama adviser is talking up how wonderful Wikileaks has been for the US government, in that it's helped people understand the "challenges" the US faces. Mike Nelson who at one point was White House director for technology policy on IT says that the US government shouldn't hate Wikileaks for the release of all those State Department documents:

�The US diplomats actually came out looking pretty good because the same thing they were saying in private was the same thing they were saying in public," he said.

"The data that was divulged provided a lot of the justification for policies that the US government had been undertaking for years."

Nelson said that the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, held a press conference to denounce WikiLeaks as a fraud because of leaked cables describing meetings between US ambassadors and heads of state in Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

"Memo after memo said, 'The head of state reports that the guy across the [Persian] Gulf is crazy and they want the US government to do something about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad'," Nelson said.

"In public the heads of state would never say that, which was why Ahmadinejad concluded the memos were fake because he thought he was well-loved by his Arab brothers.

"Releasing this information is giving people a better understanding of the challenges that [US] foreign policy makers face."

Later, he said that he hoped such revelations from Wikileaks would lead to more open discussions by governments, rather than trying to keep everything secret.

"If there is a corrupt official taking million dollar bribes from the Russians, maybe that should be public knowledge rather than hidden in a WikiLeaks cable?" he said.

I assume he meant a State Department cable, but the point makes a lot of sense. Too bad so few people in government seem to agree.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: mike nelson, us government, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

27 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

sam sin, 13 Jun 2011 @ 5:39am

and the reason there are so few people in government that agree is because they are the ones taking the bribes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2011 @ 5:57am
  
  Re:
  So right you are...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2011 @ 5:49am

So you'll just grab onto any argument, no matter how tenuous, and give it conclusive weight to support your views? That's not good for the old credibility, you know. Are you really going to adopt the position that "the same thing they were saying in private was the same thing they were saying in public"? That seems to directly contradict what you've said before. But hey, he's saying the leaks were OK, so why not go with it, whatever his reasoning? Working backwards in action, my friends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AJ, 13 Jun 2011 @ 6:03am
  
  Re:
  "I assume he meant a State Department cable, but the point makes a lot of sense. Too bad so few people in government seem to agree."
  
  Were you talking about Mike giving the above statement "conclusive weight"? How exactly did you come to that from from Mike's "makes a lot of sense" statement? Or am I feeding the Trolls again...?
  
  You do realize that this is a blog, and as such is full of both fact, and Mike's opinions right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jason, 13 Jun 2011 @ 6:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Were you talking about Mike giving the above statement "conclusive weight"? How exactly did you come to that from from Mike's "makes a lot of sense" statement?"
    
    That's not good for the old credibility, you know.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2011 @ 6:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Awww... You're being cute.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
johnjac (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 5:50am

but... but...
but ... but... LEAKS!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- xenomancer (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 6:12am
  
  Re: but... but...
  Counterfeiters, whistle-blowers, and pirates! Oh my!
  Counterfeiters, whistle-blowers, and pirates! Oh my!
  Counterfeiters, whistle-blowers, and pirates! Oh my!
  
  (the chant of executives and officials who want to enshroud their lives in secrecy and lock up as much content as possible while foaming at the mouth for everyone else to lay bare their life's details)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 6:07am

As loathe as I am to agree with an AC
This is ridiculous. I don't specifically recall what you've said about Wikileaks in the past, so I won't claim you're contradicting yourself, because I simply don't know. But this doesn't seem like one lone-wolf gov't official disagreeing with the gov't at large about the official WH actions toward Wikileaks. Rather, this looks, as usual, like a calculated piece of PR released to all-to-eager stenographer-journalists who publish anything a "qualified source" tells them.

Anyone who has read reporting on those cables (or better yet, read them directly, though who has time) has seen numerous examples of embarrassing situation after embarrassing situation caused by flat out lies they make plain, particularly with respect to policies in the ME. While it's certainly true, in the barest respect, that other ME leaders that we're more friendly with are excited about the idea that we might depose Iran's regime, the fact that a few cables prove they're bouncing up and down about it certainly does NOT validate everything our saber-rattling leaders have said regarding Iran in the last few years. If anything, it just underscores that we're itching to go to war with them and everyone in that region knows it.

I'm sorry, but this seems like the same pattern of "Bush says there are WMDs in Iraq, and we know because Cheney went on Meet the Press and confirmed it" type reporting, and I'm sad to see that a reporter I'm normally thrilled with (even in an off publication that won't make much difference in this case, since it's not geared toward political reporting) missing this obvious underlying theme.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Planespotter (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 6:09am

Typo... unless wikipedia has started to leak emails?

shouldn't hate Wikipedia for the release of all those State Department documents:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nick Dynice (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 10:46am
  
  Re:
  fixed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 6:15am

Wikileaks has drawn the wrath of the US government because it flies in the face of two principles that have infected both big business and government. The first is an obsessive need to feel in control of everything. The second is the idea that the rules and standards you demand that everyone else follow do not apply to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2011 @ 6:54am

Expect this official to be ...

Uhm... whatever happened to him. No one has heard from him in a long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous American, 13 Jun 2011 @ 7:29am
  
  Re:
  What do you mean? He never was an adviser to the President.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Trails (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 7:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    He was an agent of Eurasia the whole time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 8:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You mean Israelia, surely?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2011 @ 8:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    Mike who?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rekrul, 13 Jun 2011 @ 8:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Mike who?
      
      Mike Nelson, the guy who watches movies with Tom Servo and Crow T. Robot while the three of them crack jokes and heckle the film. Sheesh, don't you watch TV...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2011 @ 7:52am

""I assume he meant a State Department cable"

No, he meant Wikileaks cable. He basically was saying that he hopes corruption would be spotlighted with public knowledge ahead of time, instead of people finding out about it through Wikileaks.

This is why you shouldn't try to play Mr. Decipher and put words in other people's mouths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2011 @ 10:38am
  
  Re:
  We all know he hears what he wants to hear, no matter what was actually said. Some might call it wishful thinking, but I call it faithful ignorance.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Any Mouse (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 10:59am
  
  Re:
  Since Wikileaks weren't the originators of the cables, the State Department was, I have to assume you're just trolling to be a troll, and really have nothing substantial to add to the conversation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike54 (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 1:03pm

truth...
it seems you admit what Ahmadinejad has said about the aim of publishing these documents. he didn't say these are fake but he said they issued intentionaly to make discord between Arabs and Iran. he is so smart that didn't fall in US's trap and said there is not any conflict between Iran and it's neighbors. surly he doesn't think they really love him!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
boo boo, 13 Jun 2011 @ 4:13pm

All that and a Bag Of Worms from This Rogue Administration...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Kevitt, 13 Jun 2011 @ 8:10pm

WiliLeaks
The gv't. surely classifies things that need.'t, and so shouldn't, be classified, plus it oughta be able to keep a lid on classified data in the Internet age. But, none of this excuses WikiLeaks, the press or the media for usurping the function of law, gv't. and due process, which is what private entities are to work thru concerning such issues. The press and media have, in principle, been treasonous. The Australian gv't., an ally of the U.S., has power over its own citizens' criminal activities. Maybe it should be stepping on WikiLeaks. Freedom of speech and press, etc., doesn't apply to crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shine (profile), 20 Oct 2011 @ 11:22pm

who?
I guess I lost track of this news already. Did they actually find out who did the "leaking"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew, 14 Jan 2012 @ 8:39am

Are there new Wikileaks out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lrobbo (profile), 12 Jun 2012 @ 11:08am

Don't think they did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]