Doug Lacombe is Getting it Right's very first Demagogue of the Week!

We love Doug Lacombe!

What two little words can do. Could be is what's at issue here. It's exactly those two words (and their variations, such as may be) that have been fundamental when deciding upon GIR's first "Demagogue! of the Week".

We have a nominee: it is Doug Lacombe for his article "Wikileaks lacks checks and balances"

About the nomination
Doug Lacombe uses a copy and paste trick (wonderful, no pain) for his amazing deed:

" . . . those who are tempted to publish classified information in the name of press freedoms should be aware that their naivete and their blind devotion to 'the public's right to know' could be rightly termed aiding and abetting the enemy by endangering the safety of Canadian soldiers abroad. A little forethought and a large dose of loyalty to our side of the war can literally mean the difference between life and death for our soldiers, and also Afghan civilians."

You see? Could be. Totally and absolutely useful. Suddenly Wikileaks is not only exposing war abuses, oh no, THEY ARE KILLING CANADIANS! Well, could be, anyways. No explanation of course HOW this information would "endanger the safety" of Canadian troops (that's too much detail to ask, I suppose), no, a simple "could kill Canadian troops" is all that is needed.

Congratulations!
Doug Lacombe, you've done a great job! It's perfect. With a simple sentence (that you didn't have to even write yourself) you have been nominated for demagogue of the week: you've effectively turned Wikileaks from a idealistic whistleblower organization into an Canadian troops killing war propaganda machine, and therefore you have been nominated "Demagogue! of the Week".

Well done!

Footnotes:
1) Some more craftsmanship from his article below:
- "Sadly Assange, a convicted Australian computer hacker according to the Los Angeles Times
                 (not bad, Doug, and again no pain to produce it, or was there?)
- The self-righteous "we know what's best" attitude that seems to characterize Assange's various public responses concerns me. Isn't that the very definition of a despot?
                (could well be the very definition, touche!)
2) Great title too! Of course Wikileaks has checks and balances, but there's no harm in adding a little lie here and there if you want to be nominated!

Related Article:
- Doug Lacombe: "Wikileaks lacks checks and balances"