That is the only thing you got wrong.  it is "feigning" outrage, but it is quietly applauding the release.  Just another example of the slime of this administration.

The most damaging thing is the exposure to the human network.  Not who they are, but that they exist is enough to get the bad guys to start sniffing around and as you indicate, put many of them in danger.

You also did not mention the intel on Iran (showing their covert activities) that was exposed.  For the most part, the documents are a big "we already know" revelation.  I heard one analyst say that they were "Secret" not "top Secret", so very little damage (outside of the spy network) will probably occur from this (except to perhaps some relations with other countries).

I just wonder when people are going to stop excusing this administration for their gross incompetence in everything and start holding THEM accountable to the level they did Bush.  Stupid is as stupid does, and the most apparent revelation of this episode is how stupids can (and did) vote for this regime.

I forgot who is the current President?

Once again DG, you miss the point. 

The wikileaks incident isn't any president's fault.  Really, just blame the guy who leaked the documents and be done with it.  Instead your insightful commentary is: "Americans are stupid for not voting for an 85 year old man and a governor from Alaska". 

Thanks Forest.  Is life still like a box of chocolates? 

You tell me.

Not fault - responsibility!  Remember - The Buck Stops here?

You miss the point.  I am not accusing Obama of handing over the documents.  I am accusing him of gross incompetence in handling the situation (like that is new - oil Spill anyone???).  The least kept secret of this is that it was coming.  That was known months ago.  And they are just now being shocked?

Don't be stupid.  I believe you can learn.  Do not refuse to.

Out of sheer curiosity---I don't expect rational---what did you really expect him to do? 

You must give credit where it is due. Barack Obama and his Administration have the right political objectives in Afgahinstan. They however have inherited the ISI backed double dealing Thugs in the form of the Pakistan Government aNd its games. I feel that partion of Afgahistan together with the merger of the Pshtun territories of Pakistyan into a neutral land locked state under international safeguards like Switerland is the only solution that seems feasible.

No, that is giving credit where it is not due.  Obama's Afghan war is a disaster.  He is doing a Johnson on them (in more ways than one).  Instead of allowing the generals to fight it, he first picks a political one to fight it, undercuts his own pick, fires him for nothing, and then replaces him with the Bush General.  The last move is the first right one he has made.  But then that has just begun, and I fully expect him to undercut Petraeus as well.

And that is a cop out answer.  Divide and conquer is as old as history itself and that is what you are advocating.  A division would just be throwing in the towel, but it would not solve anything.  And that is not hypothesis, but history.  They could have done it themselves after the USSR left - as the Northern Alliance was firmly entrenched in 1/3 of the country, and the Taliban in another 3rd.  They basically fought a 10 year war for the whole country, which is what would happen if someone arbitrarily divides it up and then throws in the towel.

And Pakistan would never go for giving up any of its territories, period.  And I do not blame them.

Dan, you are a good DNC parrot, but you do not know anything beyond what they tell  you apparently.

1. Obama gave less than the requested troops and waited 6 months to do it.  I guess you forgot that.

2. Show me where McChrystal requested an out?  Or is that just another one of your DNC talking points?

3. I am on earth and from earth.  I heard that DNC parrots are from Uranus, but that is just speculation I suspect.

4. Please show me where I said the world was ending.  As for destroying the country, that is a matter of opinion is it not?  My opinion is that any president that nationalizes 60% of the economy is destroying the country since we know that government cannot run business.  Want to see the biggest bust since the Edsel?  Buy a Volt.  That is going to be the destruction of Government Motors and that is ALL the Obama administration.

But I guess the talking points did not cover those subjects, did they?

Right.  So clearly, not giving in to every whim of the military represents 'playing politics' and not letting the 'generals fight the war'  their hands?

So how do you explain it?  come on now.  Let's hear some independent thought.  You have a guy who has reached the highest echelon of military service.  Then one day he up and decides "you know what?  I'm going to bad mouth my boss in front of rolling stone".  Do you think that's just a coincidence?  Why does somebody do that if not to get fired? 

And please, show me where that's a DNC 'talking point'.  It's just common sense. 

YEAH YEAH DNC PARROTS YEAH YEAH ZOBAMA SOCIALISM. 

Well, a great deal of what you say does seem to have this sort of fatalist zero sum twinge to it.  Such as: 

Stuff like that is just so delusional I imagine that you're married to Lula. 

An American car?  they still make those? 

Oh.  My.  God. 

Yeah.  I guess it's not like the US was shipping equipment  to the anti-soviet war effort in Afghanistan, and it's not like that money was being distributed by the same Pakistani intelligence agencies that we know even today have a 'close' relationship with the bad guys in Afghanistan, and it's certainly not like any of that could possibly  represent the embryonic stages of both the Taliban and Al Quaada. 

No, that is the PR hype, but it is also false.  Al Qaeda was not formed or financed by the US during the Afghan campaign.  it was formed in response to the Gulf War and was never financed by the US.  That some members of Al Qaeda were a part of the Afghan resistance is a given.  But Al Qeada did not exist until the US established bases in the Middle east in response to Saddam Hussein.

I am a bit surprised at you.  Although your topics are usually left leaning, you normally do at least get the basic facts straight. You have failed in this case, and not even by a little, but by a whopping lot.