Posted on 11/29/2010 12:12:25 PM PST by maggief
Duke railed against France, British anti-corruption investigations into BAE and American ignorance, leaked dispatches reveal
Prince Andrew launched a scathing attack on British anti-corruption investigators, journalists and the French during an "astonishingly candid" performance at an official engagement that shocked a US diplomat.
Tatiana Gfoeller, Washington's ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, recorded in a secret cable that Andrew spoke "cockily" at the brunch with British and Canadian business people, leading a discussion that "verged on the rude".
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Up till now, anyway. Other than that how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?
And of course that doesn't count the State leaks to the NYT, Washington Post, et al by the hundreds during the Bush years.
Up till now? This is the guy who did it: Private First Class Bradley E. Manning
And of course that doesn't count the State leaks to the NYT, Washington Post, et al by the hundreds during the Bush years.
Every government agency leaks stuff to the MSM, some of it orchestrated by the administration in charge. It happens under every administration, not just under Republicans. The proliferation of information technology makes it easier to steal huge amounts of material that can be downloaded electronically and stolen. You can take room loads of material in a single disk or thumb drive. Securty has not kept up with the technology. Manning had unauthorized access to Secret Internet Protocol Routers network computers. He defeated the security measures in place and he had top secret clearances and beyond. Blaming the State Department for Manning's actions is nonsense.
Bullcrap. I'm in the industry. Keeping this stuff out of unauthorized hands is pretty straightforward. What was lacking here was any sense of urgency, especially in light of the previous leaks to this Assange character.
Manning had unauthorized access to Secret Internet Protocol Routers network computers.
Don't make him sound like Lex Luthor.
He defeated the security measures in place and he had top secret clearances and beyond.
Which is it? Did he defeat the security or did he have clearance?
Who watches the watchers. Manning had all the clearances. When you put the fox in charge of the hen house, you have problems. I was personally involved in a case where one of our communications personnel was stealing telegrams and providing them to the host government. Eventually, the FBI placed concealed cameras in the communications area and caught the culprit sticking the material in his shirt and pants. It is authorized hands we must worry about.
Don't make him sound like Lex Luthor.
If you read the link, that was one of the criminal charges against him. Other stories indicated that he would bring in music CDs (Lady Gaga was mentioned), erase the disk and replace it with the classified cables. You don't have to be a mastermind to steal state secrets, especially if you have authorized access.
Which is it? Did he defeat the security or did he have clearance?
Both if you read the accounts. Obviously, he was not authorized to get into State Department archives. Some of these cables go back to 1979 and our embassy in Tehran.
He's a prince, honey, accustomed to speaking his mind "in no uncertain terms". They teach that over there, to princes and gentlemen.
Unlike the "Outward Bound" dyseducation in groveling and controlled thought you got at your pecksniffy Ivy.
Fine, that’s your opinion.
Diplomatic language is usually a bunch of mealy mouthed evasions and euphemisms, couched in false compliments and platitudes, ie, lies, and designed to keep the real truth from the citizens of the countries the diplomats are representing.
The Prince is a rare entity in the Modern World, a child of privilege who speaks his mind. Imagine, a Candid Prince, he’s like a character out of a Mark Twain novel.
Again, to me it is the US Ambassador whose judgement is in question, I do not see the Prince as rude, and what the heck is “Cocky”, is that a pejorative now.
I would have classified the Prince as a rare fount of honesty, and plucky or brash instead of cocky for actually speaking truth and facts rather that lies and wishful groupthinking, which seems to be the hallmark of our rather tetchy ambassador.
Awfully thin skin there, wouldn’t you say?
I mean, why didn’t she just say, “Oh, Prince dearie, we don’t discuss these things over tea. We’re Americans, you know, and this is not quite cricket, old chap”.
You guys are too funny.
>We are competing against the rest of the world including the UK, France, etc.
AKA, the Great Game in a modern form, not monarchies competing for territory and lucre, but corporations from many countries competing for natural resources and lucre.
OK, I will bow to your greater experience and judgement about foreign policy, the State Department and diplomats in overseas postings.
But, don’t our words about democracy ring hollow when we don’t give a damn about the Theological Tyrants of Saudi and the Communist Gulags of China for our economic benefits.
So, who’s fooling who.
>>career FS ‘officers’ find ways to extract cash and second careers from the Saudis.
One of the most unspoken reasons for the RunSilent,RunDeep influence of the Saudi Theological Monarchy on American politics.
It’s the 900 pound gorilla NO ONE wants to talk about :>>
P.S. A decent fictional take on Saudi Terror Sponsorship in general is Jack Anderson’s posthumously(!) published thriller.
>a public venue.
Really. Now it’s a public venue? I thought this was a cable of a meeting that was not open to the public or the presss.
It is a leaked document of a private meeting never ever meant for our unsophisticated and unelightened eyes.
I still stand and admire the Prince’s cockiness.
That's your opinion, for what little it's worth.
The last thing a diplomat needs, is to have to go on the defensive for having said something stupid. So, yes, it's all very carefully worded -- the alternative generally being much less pleasant.
Good ol' Andy has put his country on the defensive now, in a country where they'd been trying to make a good impression. Let's see how that turns out for them.
>.That’s your opinion, for what little it’s worth.
My you haven’t changed.
Still the pompous, arrogant, condescending know it all.
Of course, it’s only your opinion that’s always correct.
Well, it seems you and our dipsydoodlediplocorps have a lot in common.
Tunnelvision, groupthink, unable and incapable of dealing with views and opinions different from your own.
Again, this was a confidential session and the Prince spoke like a man.
Our Ambassador’s oh so sensitive feathers were ruffled and she hastened to make her feelings (After all, they’re more important than facts) well known to her higher ups.
That’s real incisive and cutting analyisis for you.
I find your use of the word "lucre" revealing. I don't find making a profit to be shameful. In any event, no matter how you try to rationalize "the Great Game" reference used by the Prince, I doubt the host country would agree with your imputed definition of the phrase to mean mercantile engagement.
If you notice in the Ambassador's cable, para 6, "she recounted that she had hosted the American Chamber of Commerce's Members Day last week (attended by the Foreign Minister and the Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce) which had been widely attended and a resounding success (see reftel). She then described the beneficial impact on the Kyrgyz economy of the Coalition Air Base at Manas Airport." Our ambassador is engaged in promoting US business interests and was able to attract high level participation from the host government.
But, don’t our words about democracy ring hollow when we don’t give a damn about the Theological Tyrants of Saudi and the Communist Gulags of China for our economic benefits. So, who’s fooling who.
Our first and foremost concern is promoting US strategic national interests. The world is not painted in black and white but shades of gray. The Saudis have the world's largest reserves of exportable oil, by far. It is critical to the global economy that it continues to flow freely and mostly to our allies and ourselves.
The State Department produces an annual Human Rights report for every country in the world, including Saudi Arabia. US officials admonish the Saudis regularly on the issue publicly and mostly in private. I know from personal experience how much that is done. The Saudis are loosening up some, but have a long way to go. We do the same with the Chinese.
There are limits to what we can do and still remain engaged politically. The Saudis have been very helpful in some areas behind the scenes acting as an interlocator or a banker. They [meaning private Saudis, not the government] have also been unhelpful when it comes to AQ funding radical Islamic fundamentalists.
The Obama administration has been less inclined to champion democracy and human rights on a global basis. The lack of American leadership in this area is regrettable and will in the long run, make the world a more dangerous place.
Says the pompous, arrogant, condescending, blowhard.
Of course, it’s only your opinion that’s always correct.
Not at all. Your opinion on this matter, however, is wrong to the point of worthlessness.
I suspect you actually know better, but are so pleased by the visceral pleasure of loud internet blathering that you simply can't stop.
Says the pompous, arrogant, condescending, blowhard.
Of course, it’s only your opinion that’s always correct.
Not at all. Your opinion on this matter, however, is wrong to the point of worthlessness.
I suspect you actually know better, but are so pleased by the visceral pleasure of loud internet blathering that you simply can't stop.
If I consider lucre bad I would have used the phrase filthy lucre.
Just didn’t wanna say money or profits.
You’re the ones acting as if the Prince’s definition of modern commercial competition as the Great Game is somehow so insulting to America.
Fine, it’s not the Great Game.
And the justifications for our Saudi rimming has been well documented and put forward, even here on FR, when all the defenders and suckers of the Saudi Teat proclaimed loudly all the reasons we couldn’t take out the biggest financiers of jihad.
And we haven’t. And they still finance Jihad.
Peachy. A great shining success of American diplomacy and foreign policy.
We pay the Saudis for oil to help them finance Jihadis who kill Americans.
Nice.
For a worthless opinion, you sure have spent a lot of time refudiating it, lol
Well, I confess that I find a guilty pleasure in pointing out idiotic comments when I see them.
From the cable (para 5)
"In an astonishing display of candor in a public hotel where the brunch was taking place, all of the businessmen then chorused that nothing gets done in Kyrgyzstan if President Bakiyev's son Maxim does not get "his cut." Prince Andrew took up the topic with gusto, saying that he keeps hearing Maxim's name "over and over again" whenever he discusses doing business in this country. Emboldened, one businessman said that doing business here is "like doing business in the Yukon" in the nineteenth century, i.e. only those willing to participate in local corrupt practices are able to make any money. His colleagues all heartily agreed, with one pointing out that "nothing ever changes here. Before all you heard was Akayev's son's name. Now it's Bakiyev's son's name." At this point the Duke of York laughed uproariously, saying that: "All of this sounds exactly like France."
Personal observation: I lived in Communist Poland during the days of Solidarnosc' and martial law. The idea that Prince Andrew could hold a luncheon in a local hotel and not have it recorded and reported back to the government is insane, especially in a country that was formerly part of the Soviet Union.
You can bet the farm that every word said at the luncheon was recorded and probably filmed. No doubt some of the hotel staff worked for the Kyrgyistan intelligence agency. Based on her five postings in the Soviet Union, Russia, Poland, and two former Soviet Republics, our ambassador was well aware of that fact, hence her measured responses. Prince Andrew did more damage to British interests than helping them. His cockiness was a liability, not an asset.
OK, I’m not really concerned whether Andrew harmed English interests or not.
I simply enjoy the rare spectacle of a man speaking honestly.
And it looks the British Business contigent agreed with him.
Anyway, baksheesh is not entirely a new concept, and has been the price of doing business in certain places for virtually millenia.
In America, you have to hire the right law and PR firms, over there, you just get the President’s son a Benz and a nice account in Dubai.
It is insulting for America to be included in the "Great Game" by a Prince who is seemingly living in the days of past glory and empire. However, the insult is even greater to the Kyrgyz Republic, which does not want to be seen as a pawn to be manipulated by the great powers. The Prince made a major diplomatic gaffe. Our ambassador recognized it immediately and distanced our country from it.
We pay the Saudis for oil to help them finance Jihadis who kill Americans. Nice.
The Saudis are our fourth largest supplier of oil after Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. Oil is a fungible commodity. The Saudis will sell their oil regardless.
The Saudis helped us remove Saddam from Kuwait letting us use their bases and port facilities. They paid all of the costs of our participation amounting to more than $30 billion. They have been buying American goods and services, including weapons. They were very helpful in removing the Soviets from Afghanistan and the communists in Central America. They have provided us with lots of information on AQ and cooperated with us on terrorism.
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.