U.S. Careful Not to Offend WikiLeaks' Assange

I'm not getting what our government is doing about WikiLeaks and its reticent rock star Julian Assange, except trying to save face. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has told reporters there would not be significant damage to national security in the wake of the site's latest leaks. I suppose, then, it's the insignificant damage we should be worried about.

After hardly a whisper in the wake of WikiLeaks' first giant release of classified information, not a day goes by without some Obama administration cabinet member going before the cameras to reassure the world that all is well with U.S. national security. With Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, would it be appropriate to call the trio of Gates, Eric Holder, and Hillary a "triumvirate?" Another word lost from the English language, no doubt.

In any case, those erstwhile and prominent leaders have issued solemn statements that U.S. security is not to be fooled with, a threat that Mr. Assange is apparently not taking seriously, inasmuch as he's called for Clinton's resignation.

That hilarious (no pun on Hillary) note comes from a Yahoo News article of an interview Time Magazine's Richard Stengel had with the WikiLeaks founder. Within the call for Clinton's resignation, you see gargantuan megalomania magnified, revealing something about Assange's personality and motive. Stengel's Time interview was prearranged and conducted on Skype, a VoIP video chat software site.

In the interview, Stengel asked Assange why he sought Hillary's resignation. Assange said it was because Clinton advised state department employees to collect DNA and other information about foreign leaders. The interview was typical Assange, weaving a web of intrigue and high-mindedness about himself.

Assange also told Stengel there would be more releases to "make the world more civil." How noble of Assange to disparage a lack of "transparency" on the part of an Obama administration cabinet member! But yet, how dare he? Doesn't Assange know that "transparency" is one of President Obama's favorite words?

Certainly, the U.S. knows how to trace point-to-point ISP traffic and can locate Assange. If it is too worried about First Amendment rights bleeding onto real news organizations, it could at least disclose Julian Assange's whereabouts to the Swedish authorities, who want to arrest the WikiLeaks founder on a rape charge.

The U.S. government's paralysis at this WikiLeaks fiasco is rather like a new Olympic sport in which the U.S. is competing with Assange to see who is the most popular. If I didn't know better, I'd attribute the Obama administration's confusion and lack of resolve to a shortage of predator drone missiles.

Attorney General Eric Holder's recent press conference convinced me that the administration is slowly ratcheting up from mild irritation to genuine annoyance at WikiLeaks . It's even possible that real anger could one day break out. I was relieved, however, that Mr. Holder tempered his inflammatory remarks by saying that "...This is not saber-rattling." God forbid the Obama administration should offend WikiLeaks and Assange.