4 ms·
This is the problem I have about people who leak documents. They have an agenda and so only release the parts favorable to their bias rather than the whole arch
by donarb 6y ago
This is the problem I have about people who leak documents. They have an agenda and so only release the parts favorable to their bias rather than the whole archive. What was held back from the story that there were documents that showed that the US government was actively trying to get out of the war via back channel negotiations.
- redis_mlc 6y agoDon't over think this. Militaries never have plans to quit a war. The other side always wants the upper hand in negotiations, hence both WW1 and WW2 going to the bitter end. Source: I study WW2, and some others.
- boomboomsubban 6y agoIf Humphrey had been president, I could find fault in Ellsberg's decision not to release the diplomatic volumes. Knowing that Nixon held his own back channel negotiations to prevent peace and help his election chances, showing that Johnson made limited secret peace talks wasn't very relevant. Ellsberg's view that he didn't want to give Nixon an excuse to stall peace was a good call.
- Layke1123 6y agoOh, we were actively trying to not drop napalm in Vietnam? If only we could have been a little faster in not dropping napalm. Dratz!
- giantDinosaur 6y agoSo if someone leaked info about a killbot program, your protest wouldn't be that it's bad, but it's likely there's other work going on that'll hopefully make such killbots irrelevant, and why weren't those documents leaked? That doesn't sound very reassuring at all.