Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ellsberg Calls on Insiders to Leak Details of Alleged War Plans
Editor & Publisher ^ | 9/14/2006 | Staff

Posted on 09/14/2006 8:41:56 AM PDT by wjersey

When Daniel Ellsberg, the defense analyst, leaked the Pentagon Papers to the press in 1971, it created one of the most significant newspaper stories -- and battles -- of the century. One thing it did not do was prevent the Vietnam War, although it may have shortened it. Now he is calling on officials within the government to leak "the Pentagon Paper of the Middle East" to modern reporters, to short-circuit another possible war.

Ellsberg's challenge is found in the October issue of Harper's magazine, to appear next week. E&P has obtained an advance copy.

The article is titled, "The Next War," with the conflict in question a possible face-off between the U.S. and Iran. Ellsberg, based on unconfirmed reporting by Seymour Hersh and others, believes there is a "hidden crisis," with government insiders aware of "serious plans for war with Iran" while "congress and the public remain largely in the dark."

His remedy: "Conscientious insiders" need to leak hard evidence to the press and public, while risking their current and future employment, as he did in the early 1970s.

But Ellsberg is hardly the hero of his own story. While proud of what he did, he faults himself for waiting far too long in thed 1960s. If he had leaked in 1964, it might have halted the entire enterprise in its tracks, he feels. In the same way, he hails former Clinton and Bush terrorism expert Richard Clarke for blowing the whistle on trumped-up evidence used to support the invasion of Iraq -- but as in his case, this came after the Iraq adventure had already come to fruition.

Indeed, Ellsberg had called for insiders, such as Clarke, to come forward before the Iraq invasion, in a January 2003 interview with E&P.

Now, in the Harper's article, therefore, he declares: "Assuming Hersh’s so-far anonymous sources mean what they say—that this is, as one puts it, 'a juggernaut that has to be stopped'—I believe it is time for one or more of them to go beyond fragmentary leaks unaccompanied by documents.

"That means doing what no other active official or consultant has ever done in a timely way: what neither Richard Clarke nor I nor anyone else thought of doing until we were no longer officials, no longer had access to current documents, after bombs had fallen and thousands had died, years into a war. It means going outside executive channels, as officials with contemporary access, to expose the president’s lies and oppose his war policy publicly before the war, with unequivocal evidence from inside. Simply resigning in silence does not meet moral or political responsibilities of officials rightly 'appalled' by the thrust of secret policy. I hope that one or more such persons will make the sober decision—accepting sacrifice of clearance and career, and risk of prison—to disclose comprehensive files that convey, irrefutably, official, secret estimates of costs and prospects and dangers of the military plans being considered.

"What needs disclosure is the full internal controversy, the secret critiques as well as the arguments and claims of advocates of war and nuclear 'options'—the Pentagon Papers of the Middle East....

"The personal risks of doing this are very great. Yet they are not as great as the risks of bodies and lives we are asking daily of over 130,000 young Americans— with many yet to join them— in an unjust war. Our country has urgent need for comparable courage, moral and civil courage, from its public servants. They owe us the truth before the next war begins."

Ellsberg's most recent book is "Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers."


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: collaborator; danielellsberg; espionage; sedition; traitor; treason
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last
He's still at it!
1 posted on 09/14/2006 8:41:57 AM PDT by wjersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wjersey
To paraphrase a slogan used by the ANC during Apartheid:

One bullet,one collaborator.

2 posted on 09/14/2006 8:44:01 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative ("An empty limousine pulled up and Hillary Clinton got out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wjersey

Something that could potentionally prevent, shorten or end a war...is not good?


3 posted on 09/14/2006 8:44:06 AM PDT by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to.....otherwise, things would be different.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wjersey

I despise the fact that sedition is completely legal in America now. How the hell can a country defend itself this way?


4 posted on 09/14/2006 8:45:09 AM PDT by jpl (Victorious warriors win first, then go to war; defeated warriors go to war first, then seek to win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

yea verilly


5 posted on 09/14/2006 8:45:22 AM PDT by wildcatf4f3 (level headed analyst here...armed to the teeth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wjersey

TRAITORS SHOULD BE SHOT. Nuff said.

We have to stop playing around with people who leak information. Lock them up or shoot them for treason.


6 posted on 09/14/2006 8:51:49 AM PDT by sgtbono2002 (The fourth estate is a fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Shortening a war is Great when it protects those we love.

Shortening a war so it can be fought later when the enemy is stronger is just plain stupid.


7 posted on 09/14/2006 8:53:21 AM PDT by sgtbono2002 (The fourth estate is a fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wjersey

The little worm misses the media limelight.

What a putz.


8 posted on 09/14/2006 8:55:30 AM PDT by RexBeach (Will Rogers Never Met Bill Clinton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wjersey

I didn't know this turd was still suckin' in air. Pity.


9 posted on 09/14/2006 8:55:51 AM PDT by Fudd Fan (Some pray for peace; I pray for VICTORY that will ensure it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wjersey

Why Ellesberg never got the Rosenberg treatment escapes me.


10 posted on 09/14/2006 8:57:25 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Neville? Is that you?


11 posted on 09/14/2006 8:57:55 AM PDT by Lekker 1 (("...the world will be...eleven degrees colder by the year 2000" -- K. Watt, Earth Day, 1970)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Glad to here that traitors still have a voice on FR, stuey.


12 posted on 09/14/2006 8:58:05 AM PDT by wideawake ("The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wjersey

And the circle is now complete.


13 posted on 09/14/2006 8:58:15 AM PDT by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
Something that could potentionally prevent, shorten or end a war...is not good?

Depends on the side effects. Wars are not just meaningless spasms of violence. There are *usually* issues involved.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

See also Patrick Henry, a "warmonger" of the late 18th century. "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death". (He got Liberty!)

14 posted on 09/14/2006 9:02:15 AM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

You mean like surrender?


15 posted on 09/14/2006 9:03:59 AM PDT by kallisti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
No, sedition, revealing classified information and possible treason, are not good.

That is like saying something that helps a transplant patient get a heart...is not good? Sure unless you murder someone to get theirs.
16 posted on 09/14/2006 9:06:01 AM PDT by auntyfemenist (Card carrying conservative, William F. Buckley fan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Exactly what in my statement was traitorous?


17 posted on 09/14/2006 9:09:32 AM PDT by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to.....otherwise, things would be different.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: wjersey

And if someone does, and violates the secrets act, would he be considered a co-conspirator, and prosecutable?


18 posted on 09/14/2006 9:10:26 AM PDT by Pete from Shawnee Mission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Doesn't *everything* usually depend on *something*? Sounds relative.


19 posted on 09/14/2006 9:11:51 AM PDT by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to.....otherwise, things would be different.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: kallisti

No, did I say that?


20 posted on 09/14/2006 9:12:46 AM PDT by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to.....otherwise, things would be different.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: auntyfemenist

Was I specific, or did I just say...something?


21 posted on 09/14/2006 9:14:15 AM PDT by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to.....otherwise, things would be different.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: wjersey; hellinahandcart

Ellsberg = scum.


22 posted on 09/14/2006 9:16:28 AM PDT by sauropod (Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." PJO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

There are people who think that ending a armed conflict between parties is the end all and be all.

It isn't.

And I don't think Daniel Ellsberg or his cohorts are either willing to take responsibility for what happens when armed conflict ends, or even interested in what happens.

The shining example that people like Ellsberg use to illustrate the power of dissent to end armed conflict is the Vietnam war.

I would guess that the millions that were murdered and imprisioned in the bloodbaths that followed the US Congress's decision not to support South Vietnam might think it is not such a shining example.


23 posted on 09/14/2006 9:18:04 AM PDT by rlmorel (Islamofacism: It is all fun and games until someone puts an eye out. Or chops off a head.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wjersey

I don't remember Richard Clarke being actively involved in the "no WMD in Iraq" stuff, he was the "Bush ignored the terror threat" person. I thought.


24 posted on 09/14/2006 9:18:45 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
Was I specific, or did I just say...something?

No, you really didn't SAY anything.

25 posted on 09/14/2006 9:19:07 AM PDT by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
Why Ellesberg never got the Rosenberg treatment escapes me.

You would have preferred that the facts of how we got into Vietnam not have been made public?

26 posted on 09/14/2006 9:19:46 AM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
Something that could potentionally prevent, shorten or end a war...is not good?

Only if we win.

27 posted on 09/14/2006 9:21:51 AM PDT by airborne (Fecal matter is en route to fan! Contact is imminent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Trailerpark Badass

Silence speaks only to those that have already decided what they want to hear.


28 posted on 09/14/2006 9:21:56 AM PDT by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to.....otherwise, things would be different.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

He would have had to give the information directly to our enemies as opposed to the NY Times, Washington Post etc...


29 posted on 09/14/2006 9:22:08 AM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: airborne

I agree.


30 posted on 09/14/2006 9:22:50 AM PDT by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to.....otherwise, things would be different.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
Something that could potentionally prevent, shorten or end a war...is not good?

It depends. Does it actually preevent a war, or does it merely delay it and ensure that when it does finally come, that it is more terrible?

31 posted on 09/14/2006 9:23:24 AM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

So would surrendering. Yes, not everything that shortens the war is good.

In Star Trek - Deep Space Nine, there was an excellent episode on this type of traitorism. These really smart people (I think part of a genetic experiment) were brought to the station to analyze some captured war plans. They did an excellent job, and got access to more stuff.

They looked over all the data, and concluded that the Federation was going to lose, and the losses would be enormous.

So they decided the patriotic thing to do was to end the war. When the Federation refused to listen, they decided they should leak information to the enemy to end the war quickly -- in order to save billions of lives.

Needless to say, they were caught before carrying out the treason, although in the end they were not punished.

And of course, in the end the federation won the war.

Benedict Arnold thought the war with Britain was going badly, and was going to cost america everything (and himself as well). So he decided it would be "better" if he helped Britain win quickly, for everybody's sake.

As a result, people like Daniel Ellsberg are now called "Benedict Arnolds".


32 posted on 09/14/2006 9:23:29 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

Yes, it does depend.


33 posted on 09/14/2006 9:24:57 AM PDT by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to.....otherwise, things would be different.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: wjersey
I would fault this Administration and government if they DID NOT have plans already 'war gamed' and sitting in a manila folder in some file cabinet, NOT if they did.
34 posted on 09/14/2006 9:25:00 AM PDT by DoctorMichael (A wall first. A wall now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jpl
I despise the fact that sedition is completely legal in America now. How the hell can a country defend itself this way?

Exactly. There is always going to be some wishy-washy Soccermom type (or soccerdad) that is soft on terror, yet has access to sensitive information.

35 posted on 09/14/2006 9:28:16 AM PDT by subterfuge (If Liberals hated terrorists like they hate Bush the war would be over by now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Do you normally align yourself with traitors, or is this a one-time basis?


36 posted on 09/14/2006 9:28:40 AM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
Something that could potentionally prevent, shorten or end a war...is not good?

You mean like winning? Why not just surrender. That would prevent, shorten or end it. Sheesh, you're a FReeper?

37 posted on 09/14/2006 9:33:02 AM PDT by subterfuge (If Liberals hated terrorists like they hate Bush the war would be over by now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ohioman

I really don't align myself with anyone, I just enjoy monitoring reactions.


38 posted on 09/14/2006 9:35:40 AM PDT by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to.....otherwise, things would be different.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Good thinkin'! If FDR had only thought like that, he could have greatly shortened WW-II by capitualting to the Japs.

And Churchill! If only Churchill were more like Ellsberg all that unpleasantness could have been avoided.

Too bad for the enslaved Chinese, Poles, Czechs and all, but think of the great bargain vacations we could all enjoy in Großdeutschland.


39 posted on 09/14/2006 9:36:25 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (NYT Headline: 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake But Accurate, Experts Say.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: subterfuge

Have been for a while. Where did I mention surrender?


40 posted on 09/14/2006 9:37:14 AM PDT by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to.....otherwise, things would be different.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

Did I mention capitulation?


41 posted on 09/14/2006 9:38:09 AM PDT by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to.....otherwise, things would be different.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

I actually meant "capitulating", of course (spell chequer is you're freind). Next time you want to capitulate, rent a room, ok?


42 posted on 09/14/2006 9:42:46 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (NYT Headline: 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake But Accurate, Experts Say.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
"Something that could potentionally prevent, shorten or end a war...is not good?"

- Think it through. Advocates of treason like Ellsburg and Kerry caused literally millions of civilian deaths in the far east when the Democrats denied assistance and funding to the South Vietnamese government after the US "redeployed" it's troops and scuttled away in the night with their tail between their legs. The result: the Vietnamese boat people tragedy and the Cambodian killing field massacres.
I'm afraid that in the Democrats vocabulary, preventing a war, shortening a war and ending a war all have the same meaning to them as it did in Vietnam - a US surrender and run policy.
If they should get their way, the US would be seen again as "a weak horse" (as it was described by Bin Laden throughout Clintons time in office) and, emboldened by US perceived weakness, it won't be long before the US is hit again by terrorists, this time armed with nuclear weapons.
When that happens, the Iranians will point to the North Koreans and the Koreans will point to the Iranians as being the supplier, leaving the US to bicker over who should be held responsible and, true to present form, they will wind up blaming Bush and doing nothing.
43 posted on 09/14/2006 9:43:03 AM PDT by finnigan2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse
You would have preferred that the facts of how we got into Vietnam not have been made public?

In a word, yes.

Regardless of how the war started, it was a war that needed to be fought, all Ellesberg did was ultimately to lead to the Khmer Rouge killing two million in the Cambodian Killing Fields.

44 posted on 09/14/2006 9:46:32 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: wjersey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg

Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. Dan's like another Dan: a washed-up, lefty loser.
He'll go to his grave mumbling, "Vietnam, Vietnam . . ."


45 posted on 09/14/2006 9:53:55 AM PDT by tumblindice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

"One bullet,one collaborator."

I want to echo your sentiment.


46 posted on 09/14/2006 9:54:57 AM PDT by zook (America going insane - "Do you read Sutter Caine?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wjersey
"There's no fool like an old fool". Except for an old and unrepentant absolute damn fool.
47 posted on 09/14/2006 9:58:22 AM PDT by F.J. Mitchell (Only after the enemy is beaten into a quivering bloody pulp, can sincere peace talks begin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jpl
"How the hell can a country defend itself this way?"

It can't.

Carolyn

48 posted on 09/14/2006 10:00:00 AM PDT by CDHart ("It's too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the b@#$%^&s."--Claire Wolfe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
Have been for a while. Where did I mention surrender?

It was a rhetorical question. I knew you'd been around for a long time. I saw your other posts and I know what you mean. Just struck a bad chord with me.

49 posted on 09/14/2006 10:00:30 AM PDT by subterfuge (If Liberals hated terrorists like they hate Bush the war would be over by now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

"Something that could potentionally prevent, shorten or end a war...is not good?"

I didn't say you said surrender, I just wondered if surrender met your criteria.


50 posted on 09/14/2006 10:09:26 AM PDT by kallisti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson