Open main menu

Comments:US State department official resigns after Wikileaks comments

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Free Speech517:36, 15 March 2011

Free Speech

I guess free speech doesn't allow one to say what they think AND keep their job!

111.240.99.149 (talk)21:55, 13 March 2011

He was the spokesperson of the State Department. Anything he said is essentially the opinion of the department or could be interpreted as such.

Mikemoral♪♫22:09, 13 March 2011

That's ridiculous reasoning, and you know it.

98.250.168.229 (talk)22:49, 13 March 2011
 

More likely the State Department didn't want it looking like there was dissent in their ranks, because that would make people even less likely to take their official position seriously. Gotta toe the party line. [/sarcasm]

139.18.198.30 (talk)06:14, 14 March 2011
 

The way they are treating him is stupid and counter productive. I wouldn't have resigned for saying that.

What about the incompetent jerks who allowed this kid to have access to all of this information in the first place? Why aren't they rotting naked in jail too?

This whole "jail time without a trial" makes me very uncomfortable.

24.8.102.25 (talk)06:23, 14 March 2011

You would resign if the alternative was to get your tail publicly fired. Face it whatever you think about how the Military is treating the poor little traitor, the Commander in Chief is ultimately responsible for what is going on with the little twerp. That was a criticism of the President. And good little members of the ones government can criticize anything but the President. He does, as a political appointee, serve at the pleasure of the President. I guess he did not give the President pleasure, and got told "my way, or the Highway. Hit the road Jack." Sad that so many who hold “opinions” do not know enough to intelligently form opinions or articulate them.

75.143.145.246 (talk)17:36, 15 March 2011