Slashdot Mirror
Electronic Burglary in the Senate
earthworm2 writes "The Boston Globe is reporting that Republicans on the Senate judiciary committee have spied on confidential Democratic files for a year, studying their strategies and passing on the juicy bits to the media."
Microsoft backs the Republicans.
Microsoft shares exploit with the Republicans.
Democrats get sodomized.
Fuhrer Bush and Reichstag Security Head Ashcroft smile.
You KNOW it's true because it's on slashdot!
That's why I'm a... damn!
W@tergate ??
Old COBOL programmers never die. They just code in C.
So I misread that as "Electronic Buggery in the Senate".
If the files were supposed to be confidential, shouldn't they have been protected?
And if the Republicans are hackers doesn't that mean we should be supporting them??
Since information wants to be free and all.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Let's see how they like "terrorism" charges brought aginst themselvs.
After all, the Democrats were against the war, and thusly terrorist sympathizers!
We are exactly 20 years off on our calendar.
Trespassing? Perhaps. Spying? That's a stretch. But BURGLARY?? This looks more to me like Michael once again using inflammatory headlines to push his well-known anti-Republican agenda on the readers of Slashdot.
Mod me down if you don't like what I'm suggesting, but really folks, think about it for a minute.
"A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to access newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access only to those with the right password."
This is actually scary news for Americans!
DrkBr
As the extent to which Democratic communications were monitored came into sharper focus, Republicans yesterday offered a new defense. They said that in the summer of 2002, their computer technician informed his Democratic counterpart of the glitch, but Democrats did nothing to fix the problem.
... they get caught with both hands in the honey pot.
While it sounds like the Dems' tech guy is missing his distro of Clue, I wonder... what if he/she left the backdoor open on purpose?
Here's a scenario:
1. Repo tech tells Demo tech about security problem.
2. Demo tech realizes that any security breach could bite the Repos in the butt if discovered.
3. Optional: Tech tells Demo leadership about the plan.
4. Demo tech keeps an eye on traffic through the breach, letting the Repos pull info until...
5.
Step 3 is optional because it assumes cluefulness on the part of political leadership, which I wouldn't want to assume. But there are some tech-savvy members of Congress (surely!) who might understand the honeypot concept.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
In DC, this is called `Business As Usual`.
Skip from this incident of Republicans spying back to the years during the Clinton White House, wherein the FBI was found to have pulled confidential files on tons of prominent Republicans and provided that information (quite illegally).
Quick link to info on Filegate
Quick summary for people who don't remember 1998: "[There was a] class action suit on behalf of the more than 900 Bush and Reagan appointees and possibly others whose FBI files were unlawfully obtained by the Clinton White House. Louis Freeh, Director of the FBI, has admitted that there was an "egregious violation of privacy without justification."
It goes around, it comes around, Watergate wasn't the first time, and this isn't the last time.
Politics.
feh.
In the US, however, doesn't this make them terrorists and entitled to a free, one way, all expenses paid trip to Cuba?
Further investigation reveals that the Democrats were using Usenet for their correspondence.
Best Windows Freeware
They should have used Digital Rights Management:
Ideological opponents: ( ) Allow (+) Deny
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
Stop spoiling my well-ingrained stereotype of republicans as slack-jawed rednecks who couldn't crack into a nut, let alone a computer! How can this be? :)
These sigs are more interesting tha
Preach one thing, practise another!
Tell everyone that you're all for fair play, an even playing field for everyone but then read other people's confidential memos to gain an unfair advantage. How sleazy is that?
I wonder what Republicans who thought Bill Clinton getting a blowjob was worthy of impeachment have to say about Senators and their staffs committing crimes punishable by up to a year in prison?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
told the RIAA that there were GOPs sharing music in Senate. That would have gotten them all sued and surely lead to a decline of unshared online documents.
It is believed that the Gops used a new p2p network called "Democrapster"
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
They had to do it. The Democrats are a threat to national security. Heck, many of the voted against the Patriot Act.*
*note: This is sarcasm.
"Umm, Richard M. Nixon has passed away..."
Which means he's in a more stable condition than Cheney. And likely more photogenic to boot.
--
I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy
Hmmm, Republicans use unethical means to determine Democrats also unethical.
File this under: double plus obvious, tell us something new.
Novak declined to confirm or deny whether his column was based on these files.
"They're welcome to think anything they want," he said. "As has been demonstrated, I don't reveal my sources."
At least he's consistant in enabling criminals. A Bush administration official got Novak to blow the cover of a CIA operative involved in stopping WMD proliferation and Novak won't reveal his source in that case either. Whatta patriot!
they are all corrupt.
Interesting how we are supposed to trust a government that doesn't trust itself, eh?
Gah. I'm moving to Emland. It's a small island off the coast of your imagination. Right next to the Citgo, across the street from the Chinese takeout/wireless internet cafe/pizzaria/gas station/home depot/Publix.
Bah.
Sent from your iPad.
I don't remember anyone going to jail when Clinton illegally pulled the FBI records of some 500+ Republicians...
Not that it makes this right, but let's face it, since Watergate this kind of stuff has been happening with both sides and nobody has been punished yet.
Finkployd
That's about all the article says about the "glitch" that occurred, presumably due to human error. At first I thought the account was probably M$ Windows related, since it is would be harder with Linux/UNIX to "accidentally" create accounts which were accessible to anybody.
But then, the technician could have done anything stupid like assigning the easily guessable password across to all accounts. Or who knows, maybe they were using a database system or other software which created accounts on top of the OS.
A little more information about the OS/software in use would certainly shed more light on who was actually responsible for the glitch...instead of blaming it outright on the technician.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
It's funny - if this was Diebold with the insecure files, most here would think it was ok as it might expose some "truth."
Since the Republicans did it, it's a travesty.
Go figure.
A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake
That wasn't a computer malfunction. The computer and the software worked exactly like the way they were supposed to work.
Thou Shalt not be suprised when the documents saved in a public share show up the the Wall Street Journal.
This story is appalling, but also ancient. Let's
bring it back out closer to election time, though,
when it is again relevant.
> Republican staff members of the US Senate Judiciary
> Commitee infiltrated opposition computer files for a year,
> monitoring secret strategy memos and periodically
> passing on copies to the media, Senate officials told The
> Globe.
> Novak is also at the center of an investigation into who
> leaked the identity of a CIA agent whose husband
> contradicted a Bush administration claim about Iraqi
> nuclear programs.
So, Novak leaks the name of a CIA operator for political gain to hide the fact that Bush lied about Iraq trying to buy uranium for nuclear weapons. Then he blows the cover of a CIA front operation to further his story. Why isn't this guy in jail?
More importantly, some Republicans keep doing crazy stuff like this. We still don't know which "senior Bush official" leaked the info to Novak, and Bush seems uninterested to find out who committed this crime. The Republicans have been desperate to bury Watergate's effect on their image, but stuff like makes it alive and well.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Didn't a republican president resign over things like this?
No. A Republican president resigned over a massive illegal campaign of domestic spying and sabotage, of which the breakin to which you refer was only one small part; the coverup of that breakin was mainly intended to keep investigators from finding out about the overall campaign and all the other things they'd done.
I understand the tendency we all have now to compare every political scandal with Watergate (right down to giving scandals names of the form "_fill_in_the_blank_here_gate"); and maybe a whole bunch more illegal/unethical crap will be discovered that makes this current situation comparable. But right now, it isn't.
Let's assume for a moment that Senators and/or their staffers were illegally accessing systems that they were not supposed to be gaining entry to.
Using the same Draconian laws that they themselves enacted, these people could end up serving hard time for their deeds, losing their rights to privacy, vote and carry a gun. That and losing their jobs and pensions, not to mention medical benefits, etc. In other words, as felons, they become no-ones.
That to me, is the definition of irony.
The FBI/Ashcroft would be beating down our door, seizing anything that plugs into a wall outlet, and charging us with domestic terrorism. ...even if we had done it simply for the challenge of it.
Why is it that when the Republicans do it, for _nefarious_ reasons, it's largely ignored/shrugged off? Where are the charges? Where the zealosy?
Double standards are great, especially when they cost people their lives to our Judicial system, while the true criminals get kickbacks and screw their constituencies.
and on top, he killed hundreds of thousands in Laos, Cambodia, and vietnam.
but on the plus side, he established the rights-stomping war on drugs, and as an added bonus went after peaceful protestors and tried to create a police state.
if only we could have another president like richard milhouse nixon.
sigh... i get all gushy just thinking about it.
... hi bingo
"Green? Libertarian? Reform? Independent?
Power corrupts."
And PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
You got'a love it! when anyone else looks at files they should not be looking at, it is "criminal hacking" when they look at the same stuff it is called "glitch" :)))
In contrast to the false impression given by the quote above, more than a dozen, well-qualified Clinton nominees had to wait over 500 days to be confirmed, including nine who waited over 700 days, four who waited over 900 days, two who waited over 1,000 days, and one, Richard Paez, who waited 1,520 days from nomination to confirmation.
Louis Freeh, the source that you're quoting authoritatively, is also the FBI Director who misallocated funds and agents to investigate Clinton's WhiteWater scandals.
In case you weren't familiar with those, the WhiteWater scandals were shown to be completely baseless. As a matter of fact, several independent government agencies acquitted the Clintons of wrongdoing from the very beginning. Despite this, Freeh continuned to play up to his Republican buddies in Congress.
While we're meditating on this era, let's remember the outrageous scandals that neo-conservatives used to ruin a great presidency.
Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
Though honestly, I'd like to know what this "glitch" is. Sounds like someone had a rootkit, and the tech didn't patch windows.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to access newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access only to those with the right password.
Does this mean the party that controls the senate gets to hire the technician who manages the servers? Am i the only one who sees a problem with that?
It strikes me as ironic (in the scary, not-very-funny-at-all sense) that it's the judiciary committee that got caught breaking the law, violating ethics, and spying on their counterparts.
We're supposed to trust these people with judicial nominees?
Is it just me, or does this sound an aweful low like Watergate, electronic style?
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
It is a shame the article didn't go into any technical details about what kind of servers these were.
I'll give you one guess what i think it is.
By want, I assume that you meant took. Maybe yes, maybe no.
But when you competitor does, it's pretty clear that it's theft.
Sigs are bad for your health.
having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access
intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains information from any department or agency of the United States
intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States
knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period
knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States
Though the Republicans claimed that the information was accesible through a "glitch," exploiting such a glitch to obtain private memos is still breaking the law.
Now, I doubt this will ever end up in a trial of any sort, but if it does, and (as is most likely) the case is dropped, couldn't people accused of hacking a gov't computer use this hypothetical case as part of their defense argument? By ignoring their own laws, the US gov't will eventually dig itself into a hole it can't get out of.
This is the political equivalent of an insider trading scandal or other form of corporate crime. Those who care about the law want it to be prosecuted to its full extent. However, everyday people look at corporate crooks or corrupt Republicans stealing Democratic memos off the network and think, "Damn! I wish I had gotten away with that!"
In this situation, the Republicans come away looking like the sly rogues who "got away with it," and the Democrats look like beleasguered victims... and at the end of the day, most people would rather be the victimizers than the victims, and thus will identify with the Republicans.
The law is, if it's meant to be secure (whether or not it actually is being immaterial) then accessing that information without permission is a major felony.
So, when will we see the perps in prison? Not that Whitewater, this-is-just-a-camp-with-a-fence type prison, but a real-live fuck-you-in-the-ass type prison? (Probably never.)
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Republicans cannot be trusted.
It seems like this should be a major scandal. The theft of confidential and private files is not small beans. There's hardly any information about it on the major news sites, however. Looking on Google News, I was able to find a few articles from small publications. I didn't see anything on www.cnn.com, www.msnbc.com, or news.bbc.co.uk.
There's a reply up there about "this is business as usual", but I can't think of any possible excuse or mitigating of extenuating circumstances for this sort of crime. Saying that "well it's been done before" certainly doesn't make me feel any better about it.
It's hard enough to take our government, and my role in it, seriously. Blowing off this kind of scandal certainly doesn't help.
Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
Not sure I saw much outcry when someone posted internal memos from Diebold?
"There appears to have been no hacking, no stealing, and no violation of any Senate rule," Miranda said. "Stealing assumes a property right and there is no property right to a government document. . . . These documents are not covered under the Senate disclosure rule because they are not official business and, to the extent they were disclosed, they were disclosed inadvertently by negligent [Democratic] staff."
Translation: "I didn't do it, but even if I did you couldn't prove I did anything wrong."
Now we see the moral *squishiness* of the individuals involved. If these files had been national security documents (government documents) or salary action documents (also government documents), would Miranda still claim that they were open season for anyone who wanted to read them?
Does anyone still believe that the USA Patriot Act will be used exclusively for criminal investigations?
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Good post. I think the majority of people get their info about Watergate from watching Forrest Gump. "Hmmmm. Someone is searching for something with a flashlight, then Nixon resigns...."
Allow me to coin the inevitable term for this Republican crime: "CyberGate". This time, we should be even more freaked out than in 1972. The stakes are higher now, with the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions on the line, even worse backfire threats than Vietnam. And more importantly, Republicans cracking the Democratic Senate files and leaking them to the press demonstrates their predatory menace to the privacy and security of all Americans, all people in the world. In the shadow of Nixon's Watergate breakin to spy on the Democrats in his 1972 reelection campaign, and their bugging of the Democratic National Committee at the 1972 Democratic convention, this obvious pattern of criminal behavior at the top of the Republican Party is intolerable. Senators should be jailed, GOP party heads should be jailed under RICO as mafia. Otherwise, the Republican mafia juggernaut will barrel through every hall of justice, leaving nothing but destruction.
--
make install -not war
Still, I've lived for brief periods of time in towns where nobody locks their doors. I don't think it's dumb at all that this is treaspassing; most people wouldn't care if you randomly wandered in for a friendly chat, but they have the right to toss you out if you're being a bastard, and a right to their privacy.
"There appears to have been no hacking, no stealing, and no violation of any Senate rule," Miranda said. "Stealing assumes a property right and there is no property right to a government document. . . . These documents are not covered under the Senate disclosure rule because they are not official business and, to the extent they were disclosed, they were disclosed inadvertently by negligent [Democratic] staff."
So they are "government documents" but not "official business." And it's not stealing because they were "disclosed" by someone making a mistake setting up security. You heard it straight from the Senate Majority Leader's staff: If a sysadmin mistake allows you to get into a system, then everything in the system is freely "disclosed" and there's no penalty for copying it.
Also, documents can be "government" but not "official" - presumably the Republican Party is the only "official" government by now?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
This is one of those classic things that looks sneaky but within the usual beltway rules, until everyone finds out about it. Some smart guy figures out how to pull a fast one without thinking through the consequences. But this is a lot bigger than a simple dirty trick. It looks like numerous criminal laws were broken, although IANAL.
I just remember Watergate. The story simmered in the background through the summer and fall of 1972. Few people paid much attention to it. In 1973, the thing suddenly went critical and took out a major chunk of the Republican leadership over the next year and a half. The major crimes in Watergate happened during that quiet period in late 1972. But the scandal ripped the lid off a festering pool of nastiness with all kinds of secondary consequences. Guys like Agnew got nailed for things completely unrelated, but without the scandal, they never would have been investigated. If this blows up, watch for a lot of other things (Haliburton?) to suddenly show up on the law-enforcement agendas.
The Patriot Act allows Republicans to look at any computer files they want.
-- cloudnine --
(a) Whoever
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y. of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--
(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);
(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or
(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;
(3) intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States;
(4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $ 5,000 in any one-year period;
(5)
(A)
(i) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
(ii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or
(iii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage; and
(B) by conduct described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A), caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused)--
(i) loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value;
(ii) the modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals;
(iii) physical injury to any person;
(iv) a threat to public health or safety; or
(v) damage affecting a computer system used by or for a government entity in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security;
(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar infor
Maybe the "technician" set the password to "liberal" for the Democrats and "conservative" for the Republicans?
Answer: The first I learned of these incursions were when I read the story on CNN. I am appalled that someone on my staff could do such a thing. Here, have a sacrificial lamb.
This is why cringe when they are called "America's Leaders". A leader take responsibility for the actions of their staff.
That means if something is done that's illegal, even if they didn't know about it, it's still their responsibility.
No, they do not lead me. They do not lead the country, surely.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Morality and ethics aside - this is done everyday by both sides and is old news. It always surprises me how liberal the average Slashdot reader appears to be. Such a waste.
I can't believe you said such a thing. Morality and ethics aside? What sort of argument is that? Having expectations that government work in a smooth and orderly fashion, in a manner that will express the will of the people, is not a liberal position. Saying "morality and ethics aside" is like saying "notions of civilization aside". If being conniving, crooked and dishonest are your ideas of how a political philosophy should work, please point me to the other side.
Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
You might want to check out this quote from http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200305/050803.html a source as unbiased as Orrin Hatch, the source of your quote.
Nearly 60 Clinton nominees were not given hearings and/or votes, and others were filibustered or waited years to get their hearings.
At the time Democrats took over leadership of the Judiciary Committee in the summer of 2001, Democrats inherited 110 vacancies, and 40 additional vacancies occurred while Democrats were in charge. The Democratic Senate confirmed 100 Bush judicial nominees - 17 circuit and 83 district - in only 17 months. Presumably, nearly all 100 confirmed by the Democratic-led Senate were pro-life, conservative Republican nominees. The Democratic pace was faster and fairer than Republicans' pace since their slowdown began in 1996. Last year (2002) was the best single year (in terms of numbers of judicial nominees confirmed) since 1994.
My number 1 gripe about the current Republican party. They're too unified, and too efficient. We're a pluralistic nation with many interests, and our government should reflect that. Most of the time, that means they should be quibbling and arguing and getting NOTHING done. Then the rest of us can be about our business without excessive interference. That's my idea of "less government."
The current Republican party pursues its vision as if it's the only on that counts. Moreover, there's little-to-no debate within the Republican party - it's as if they've got their marching orders from the Secret Government (Who pulls the strings of the Republican Campaign Finance Committee?) and are being dutiful soldiers.
I'd be just as annoyed if the Democrats were in the same position doing the same things.
As for the Supreme Court, only 3 justices are of any interest at all. Fortunately the other 6 balance each other out so true thought and deliberation can come through.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
This isn't Democratic Party data or Republican Party data, this is MY data, because it's sitting on MY server that MY tax dollars paid for and it's maintained by MY tech who is paid by ME. If democratic party strategists what to keep their "confidential" data on MY hardware they better expect problems. It's open to the public, although probably through the mechanics of a FOIA request, but FOIA doesn't apply to government employees, which these staffers clearly are. So quitcherbitchin.
Every time you sign on a government(read PUBLIC)-owned computer, you get a nice little blurb about how all your data on that system is government-owned when you login. Everything you put on that system belongs to the public. If you want to whine because other government employees saw that data, you friggin agreed to it at login. Whiners about this are dumber than a box of hammers.
If democratic strategists want to keep data about their machinations confidential, they can put that data on their own systems that communicate on their own networks that they pay for themselves. Same goes for republican party operatives. I'm not interested in paying for computer systems with public funds that are considered the personal property of any political party. They have plenty of money of their own and don't need me to subsidize their IT infrastructure any more than I should be subsidizing their other party activities.
I'm pleased that this happened. Political parties are not entitled to exclusive use of public resources.
They like to be refered to as "leaders", but they're really just politicians.
Real leaders, usually, do not make good politicians. Real leaders don't spend time building concensus and spinning the decision and working with focus groups to sharpen the message.
You're correct about the leader having final responsibility for the behaviour of his/her people. But, when was the last time we saw anything like THAT in politics here?
First off read the article, the Demos go on to say "no harm no foul" since the documents aren't "owned" by anyone and are not official govt business. They even put the blame on their own admin.
A few other things to clear up: This was not a "glitch," instead it was a simple permissions issue where certain security policies were not implemented properly or at all.
Second: If a document is readable, people will read it. Right wrong or otherwise I don't really see what the big deal is. These people are supposed to running our fscking country not trading dirty secrets about how to screw the president out of a judicial nominee.
Sure the people who weren't supposed to have access should have said somthing, but by the same token I can say the admin should have double checked to make sure they didn't have access.
If the honeypot theory is correct, and Demos knew the documents weren't secure whey would they allow stupid shit like "hes a latino" go there in the first place. If anything they would place false documents there and make he republicans look bad when they come out with all these lies and rumors.
In my opinion this doesn't even hurt the republicans credibility...so what if they were seeing stuff they weren't meant to see...the shit found more than makes up for any "ethical" issues involved. I say we pass a law that anything written, typed, or electronicly produced by any of our governmental representatives (that isn't top secret or national security) should be made public within 24hours of its creation.
Its time our government was held responsible for all the BS it creates.
Apple free since 1990!
Politicians work for themselves. People in power (such as in congress) have something to trade. They trade the power they have through control of government in return for things. They trade some of that power to the masses, in the form of "social services", redistribution of wealth, and sometimes just empty promises. In return, they get votes that allows them to stay in power.
They also trade some of that power to corporations and rich individuals in return (generally) for money so that they can buy votes so they can continue to get more power (or maintain the power they have).
A modern day witchhunt.
It's not like anybody got a BJ or anything.
"I am not a crook" was not said in direct response to accusations over the Watergate break in, but accusations that he had avoided income taxes, and obstructed the IRS's investigation. That's why the full quote continues : "I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I got."
It was in 1973 though, and in an interview session when he was questioned about Watergate, so many people forget this.
Note to young people : Richard Nixon was a crook.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
John Stockwell, former CIA agent, described the phenomenon of a "soft file". He had been a field agent, in half a dozen field offices, for his first decade or so in the CIA. His final field post being in Vietnam, just prior to the fall of the South.
Following his return from Vietnam he got a plum post, back in HQ, co-ordinating the CIA's 1975 Angola efforts.
This was during a period when the CIA was starting to get a lot of Congressional scrutiny. And the response to this was the destruction of a lot of official files -- together with the creation of unofficial "soft files". Since the soft files had no official existence they couldn't be subject to a normal subpoena ro FOIA request. The drawback to them was that your colleagues could only request a copy of them through word of mouth. But this drawback was worth living with if the contents would destroy your career, if subjected to outside scrutiny.
Should CIA employees keep soft files -- whose intent is to cover their tracks and deceive the American public? In my opinion absolutely not. CIA employees are supposed to carry out policies, not make them.
Is it then okay for Politicians to keep soft files? I dunno.
If any individual person (one of us, the slashdot reader, for instance) did something like this, we would be under investigation or arrest rather quickly. This is referred to in the media as "hacking". It doesn't matter one whit whether or not the victim was "wide open" or not. NOT have unbreakable defenses up on your computer does not make it A-OK for anyone to waltz on in and do whatever. It is considered a crime and many "hackers" have been prosecuted for this.
The Republicans are getting away with it. It is OK for them to do this but any human being (they aren't human) does the same thing and they're looking at jailtime.
Bullcrap! Say I. Equal enforcement of the law. Hacking into computers you do no own is considered a crime and it should be handled as such. It is obvious that Senator Hatch, hypocrit of all hypocrits, belongs in jail. His pukes did it (he probably thought it was cute and funny). How about I do it to his personal systems? Still funny? Still OK?
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
But I bet more than a few of the republicans who accessed the open files are probabably ones that have recommended long prison terms for 'hackers'.
And I really hope that This Manual Miranda wasn't the Chief Judicial Nominee...
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
Several people have commented that they are dissapointed that this story hasn't reached more mainstream media outlets such as CNN.
Here is a link to CNN's 'News Tips' section where you can submit breaking news and ideas. I sincerely hope some of the slashdot population takes advantage of this as I just did.
In this day and age, responsible file protection on the part of our elected officials is mandatory. I realize that's a loaded remark, but no matter how you slice it, something has to change within our Congressional offices and infrastructure. Either someone hacked protected files or someone failed to protect files that should have been protected. I have general administrative access on our LAN and even I occasionally stumble across files I can't access. There are multiple levels of security for all things digital and either someone is misusing them or neglecting there use. Is their a third alternative?
Soap Box:
I too am disturbed by this revelation.
But, if negligence is a factor (on either side), or some level of corruption, or misrepresentation of the people, then let us use our tricameral system to resolve it. Otherwise we are guilty of doing nothing but whipping up yet another impotent hysteria-of-the-moment using mass media. Take them to court. Elect new representatives. Our system of government is designed to be manipulated by the citizenry, intending to enact the will of a majority while protecting the rights of minorities. Problem is that the majority don't participate. The only ones doing the manipulating are an ambitious minority, some championing worthy causes, others power hungry and greedy, perhaps even rotten to the core, but all an ambitious minority just the same.
Judging from the relevant federal code (helpfully posted below), there does appear to be *some* chance that the Republican senators broke the law, by exceeding their authorized access to the files which, although were not "property" of the government, were stored on a government computer.
On the slim chance that any of the Republican senators are prosecuted, how much would you like to bet that they get off with a reprimand and a slap on the wrist?
Now, if the janitor in that office had been caught paging through the Dems' (or the Repubs') confidential memos, you can be sure he would have been prosecuted as a computer criminal. Judges are getting more heavy-handed as of late, and it's becoming increasingly more popular to invoke the Patriot Act in cases of computer crime. There's a very good chance that our poor janitor would have been tried, and convicted, as a terrorist.
But, because the criminals in this case are rich, powerful, important white men with many friends in government, they'll likely get off scot free.
I say: give these slandering, pandering, filibustering, dirty-bird legislators a taste of their own medicine! Let them be tried under the inappropriately harsh laws that snuck into the books under THEIR noses. It'll never happen of course, but it sure would be nice.
Sometimes I'm really upset by our divisive and angry Two Party System; it seems like nothing ever gets done. Other times I am very, very grateful that the government is not one gigantic unified son of a bitch, because then all those manipulative, controlling and totally evil tendencies would be aimed squarely at me.
Hmmm...what if it is aimed squarely at us and the interparty bickering such as this is simply to distract us from the fact that both parties pretty much taste like chicken?
Pepsi and Coke's "cola wars" campaigns did the same thing by squeezing out the small soda manufacturers and turning the soda market into what is basically a shared monopoly. If either one ever came out on top it'd be shut down but as long as there's two of them it's somehow okay and we forget about all the other flavors out there.
Dems and the media just had a big laugh about what a fun little caper it was.
o nnelly/70397_joel1 5.shtml
The 'Dems' were not caught spying on cell phone call. The call was intercepted by a couple in Florida who paid a $500 fine.
The tape was, in fact, leaked to the media by a democratic congressperson, according to this article (which is not friendly to the congressperson):
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/c
It is disingenuous, at best, to call what happened an example of "spying" on phone calls by Democrats. An elected official received the tape from ordinary citizens; no goverment employees or party apparatchiks involved in the interception of the call.
I would also like to see some evidence to support your contentions about "big laughs" and "fun little caper".
Send lawyers, guns, and money. Dad, get me out of this.
I just remember Watergate. .... Guys like Agnew got nailed for things completely unrelated, but without the scandal, they never would have been investigated. If this blows up, watch for a lot of other things (Haliburton?) to suddenly show up on the law-enforcement agendas.
Didja know that Rumsfeld was a member of Nixon's cabinet?
"Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Assistant to the President, and a member of the President's Cabinet (1969-1970); and, as Counsellor to the President, Director of the Economic Stabilization Program, and a member of the President's Cabinet (1971-1972)."
- Source
The Rumsfeld-Cheney-Nixon connection is also interesting:
"When President Richard M. Nixon selected Rumsfeld as White House counselor in 1970, Cheney joined him as his deputy. In August 1974, Gerald Ford assumed the presidency and asked Rumsfeld to be his chief of staff. Rumsfeld immediately sought out Cheney."
- Source
Rumsfeld never got press as a major Watergate player. But this is interesting:
"Rumsfeld was not entirely divorced from Nixon's political operations. There is no sign that he was involved in any of the illegalities of Watergate, but he was willing to offer Nixon other help of a not particularly exalted nature--some dirt on political enemies, some covert ties with a prominent pollster. The Nixon tapes reveal that Rumsfeld often worked with and was a special favorite of John Mitchell and Charles Colson, Nixon's roughest political operators, who viewed Rumsfeld as savvier than other White House aides."
- Source
Mitchell was an obstructor of justice, and Colson was a hatchet man. Rummy was close with those guys? Must be sweet to have a resume like that -- fits right in with the Bush administration.
-kgj
-kgj
This is just Watergate brought to the new millenium .... why should you be suprised .... only their spokespeople are slack jawed rednecks
In the shadow of Nixon's Watergate breakin to spy on the Democrats in his 1972 reelection campaign, and their bugging of the Democratic National Committee at the 1972 Democratic convention, this obvious pattern of criminal behavior at the top of the Republican Party is intolerable.
Doc -- cf. my post re. Nixon, Rumsfeld, & Co.
-kgj
-kgj
To those on /. who think that
"information wants to be free" or
"this wasn't hacking, the tech screwed up" or
"these were public (govt) computers"
ask yourself this:
what do you think would happen if you just sat down at your boss's computer and started reading stuff? Suppose your boss is a state senator (making the machine one 'owned' by the public).
you'd be fired.
for a damn good reason.
the Reps who did this were doing something wrong and they knew it, or should have known it. The Dems were negligent in protecting themselves but that doesn't absolve the crime.
And I use the word crime very deliberately.
I am on the Blue side of the isle. As an honest man, have taken issue with Rep beheavor even since becoming aware of my own consience.
/.'rs feel if a system isn't protected that it's a license to walk right in. We often blame "STUPID" administrators for their own problems, taking pride in that our systems have been "secured".
What bothers me most is that the victoms have been blamed:
"There appears to have been no hacking, no stealing, and no violation of any Senate rule," Miranda said. "Stealing assumes a property right and there is no property right to a government document. . . . These documents are not covered under the Senate disclosure rule because they are not official business and, to the extent they were disclosed, they were disclosed inadvertently by negligent [Democratic] staff."
I know many
Sometimes I leave to go to the market and forget to lock the front door to my house. I no more expect to come home to someone going through my belongings as the next person would. And I would not and will not accept personal blame for the intruders behavour. The intruder is wrong, at fault and is to blame. The intruder is the scum, I am but forgetful.
I wouldn't care at this point if Micky Mouse won the Democratic nomination, I still wouldn't vote for Bush and his NeoCons.
To keep this post more on topic... I do NOT agree that because their system was vunerable, that they are the parties responsible for the disclosure. This is so Orwellian. War is Peace, Freedom is Occupation and now... this. Stealing is Ownership?
My take-away summary from the article:
Are there any places left with a government that has some semblence of ethics?
Now as a network admin, I am in a position of trust. I can more or less poke around the system at will, read any files I'd like, and sift through everyone's email. While it is techically possible, if I were ever caught doing this I would be fired.
I'm not even sure I would get to clean out my desk.
This is not a matter of Joe Hacker forwards an internal memo. This is a matter of one competing faction within an organization abusing his or her access to a computer system. That is bad enough. They had to take it a step further and PUBLICIZE the information they found.
Joe Hacker is an outsider acting on his own. The Halloween memos and such, he has an informant on the inside. He may embarrass a company. He may steer a lawsuit. The worst damages are monetary.
Jane Insider, on the other hand, is committing betrayal. She is seeking to influence elections and the operations of government. All this while working for an elected official.
Both Joe and Jane should probably get an extended stay at Uncle Sam's Federal Resort. Joe for theft, Jane for treason. It doesn't matter WHAT party you are working for. You do not fold mutilate or spindle and elected official's documents.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
For those of you who didn't read to the bottom of the article, the guy who is supposed to have done this has said:
"There appears to have been no hacking, no stealing, and no violation of any Senate rule. Stealing assumes a property right and there is no property right to a government document. . . . These documents are not covered under the Senate disclosure rule because they are not official business and, to the extent they were disclosed, they were disclosed inadvertently by negligent [Democratic] staff."
These were not password protected files, they were on a network available to any members of the Judiciary committee. When the Republican's first learned of this (both sides were affected by the mistake) they fixed their files and told the Democrats to do the same. When they didn't, they took advantage of it.
It was unethical, but the only worse thing in politics is to be incompetent. Think for a minute now, if these had been paper documents which had been left alone in a place where any Senator could get to them, there would be no story here except that the Dems screwed up.
That newsmax article is absurd. The writing is horrible, the quotes are unattributed, and the analysis is the definition of bias.
So what? What's that got to do with the subject matter? You discount the news, without even trying to verify it, just because of the source?
Aw, for pete's sake! Do I have to spell EVERYTHING oput for you?
As I've read many times here on Slashdot every time someone comes to the defense of various enchroachments of civil liberties: "If the Democrats haven't done anything illegal, what have they to worry about?"
Wake up, for Christ's sake! This is how power given to the government is abused. It will always be abused, which is why we have to protect our privacy at all costs.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
I read the internet for the articles.
here's hoping he goes to the theater to see a play.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Ah, but the difference which you seem incapable of grasping is: in one case, the POTUS (Clinton) did the deeds, and in the other case (Bush), someone in his administration did the deed. Bush may or may not have known the information he gave to Congress was correct or incorrect. Clinton knew he was lying, he had given his oath to tell the truth. Disputable indeed.
Unless you buy into the theory that EVERY OTHER MEDIA OUTLET is controlled by The Man, could it be that, oh, the public just doesn't give a shit?
Well, that's only about 5 companies, so it's entirely possible that 5 large, conservative corps would like to avoid angering the party that currently controls all 3 branches of government. Go figure.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Who posted this? Did they read the article?
A Democratic tech improperly gives worldwide read access to every account created on a server, and this is the Republican's fault?
Not to mention that there is no evidence presented that Republicans made use of this flaw - only claims by the Democrats!
Clear, Dark Skies
Who broke into what, dude?
It's really pitiful that on a supposedly geek-oriented site people are throwing around words like "burglary" and "broke into" without either evidence or explanation.
The only hard fact here is that the Democrats opened a security hole in their *own* machine - which the Republicans claim they were warned about a year and a half ago. The rest of this article is supposition, speculation and fear mongering.
Clear, Dark Skies
Unattributed quotes and unverified accusations very much matter. The writer should at least make an effort at credibility, rather than rely on me to do his research, especially in cases where there is such a bias. I expect the same from left-wing sources I read as welll.
A blog about stuff.
Very little; all his life
*braces for impact of (-1, Troll) mod*
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
...Slashdotters were for file sharing.
After reading through many of the posts in response to the Boston Globe's article, there appear to be two general opposing opinions. First, the Republicans did nothing illegal because the files were unsecured. Second, The Democrat's files were illegally obtained because there was malicious intent to find and read them. I would like to think that most of us could agree that even if the activity was legal, the viewing of the documents were at least unethical. In any case there certainly appears to be a number of questions unanswered. For instance, who on the Republican side viewed the documents? Did they stumble upon the documents or did they search for them? Who on the Democratic side was alerted of the security hole? Did the Democrats believe their memos were fully secure? Are there ethical behavior rules of the Senate/Congress that were broken? I encourage all /.ers to write his or her Senators to ask that the investigation be complete, ethical rules be developed to prevent this behavior in the future, and if any illegal activity did occur that the individuals involved be turned over to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
If you do not know who your Senator are (tisk tisk), you can find out at http://www.senate.gov/.
I find it interesting that no one is focusing on the reported contents of these memos. So the Democratic party feels threatened by a Hispanic man gaining a position of power without a hand-out from the government? If this is true, it's absolutely shameful.
Since it will take months to sort out whether a crime was committed, I've drafted a summary of expected consequences for people who do this sort of thing:
Please note that the RIAA may seek additional punishment if the material was copyrighted. So kids, think before you act
You *DO* and *SHOULD* "discount news without even trying to verify it" if the "news" starts out its life with no credibility. See, "news" without basic credibility is "gossip" and giving gossip a venue into the social discourse is a very bad idea.
Without this filter, we would each have to spend hours each day dealing with the un-discounted accounts of Bigfoot Performing Dark Rituals with Aliens on their UFO's to cause Devil Boy to Possess retired woman's Toaster in Desmoins.
So yes, unattributed "quotes" about unsubstanciated ideas that belch forth from untrustworthy sources can, and indeed must, be assumed to be crap, and therefor safe to ignore.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
>> Unless you buy into the theory that EVERY OTHER MEDIA OUTLET is controlled by The Man, could it be that, oh, the public just doesn't give a shit?
It's all so clear now... the "mainstream" media, often derided for it's "liberal" bias, which in point of fact consistently shelters conservatives and lambastes liberals, and which is largely run by conservatives, ignores issues which are front and center on the world stage (when they put republicans in a bad light) or magnifies issues that are irrelevant (when they are even true) to attack democrats... yes, the "mainstream" media,
It doesn't need to ask people what they want, it just has to tell them.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Where is fucking Osama bin Laden?
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
The treatment of arab jews in Israel suggests that the Globe may be correct on at least one of those points.
Of course the idea of a religious state is kind of repugnant anyway and should should be examined more closely in light of the facts that arguably* the most well armed religious state in the world is turning that military upon a civilian population who are unlucky enough to be of a diferent faith. call me troal but seems like more often than not religion is used as a justification of violance.
*some people seem to thin the united states is a religious state
My keyboads not woking popely.
More lies perpetuating as fact:
You allege the White House cosigned loans. In addition to not having the constitutional power to do so, they also did not do so. You allege that an article shows how far Clinton's Pals were using influence to help their buisness budies - but they didn't, beucase Rubin was not working in the White House and he got rebuffed by actual Clinton appointees.
Whitewater was not baseless - the Clintons were defrauded, and then we were defrauded.
I'm the best IRC client ever.
"They had an obligation to tell each of the people whose files they were intruding upon"
Doesn't that kinda take all the fun out of reading someone else's email?
-- sometimes AND gates turn me on.
This isn't another Watergate for the Republicans, this is a StupidGate for the Democrats. Not only were the Democrats using taxpayer funds to pay for the production and storage of their political documents, they were giving Republicans free access to them. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. The DNC's private servers would have been a better place to put these non-governmental documents, not on a taxpayer funded server. Everyone of those documents belong to the people of the United States which members of the Republican party in the Judiciary are...
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Right. Why should any of us worry about criminal behavior when we can worry about crass behavior?
I don't support what the dems did to Estrada but... Christ...
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Well, after the Republicans managed to raise the media concentration limits today from 35% to 39% today, using a secret Republican only conference committee, nearly every media outlet is owned by the man. Or worse something like 39% is owned by Rupert Murdoch and Fox which is pretty blatantly biased to the Republicans. Viacom/CBS owns another 39%, so two companies now own 78% of media outlets. I'm sure when Murdoch decides to buy some more they will raise the limit again to accomodate Fox since its the best thing thats ever happened to Republicans, a network that makes them out to be infallible and people watch it and they believe it.
Theres not even much left for GE/NBC and Disney/ABC which also qualify as the man. Clearchannel, of course, owns nearly all the radio stations, and they are also the man.
@de_machina
It is more than possible to live on one income.
Also of note is that I don't have an iPod or a Tivo. There are no game consoles in my house, no XBox, no PS2, nothing. I have a PDA but it is an old Handspring visor that someone gave me for free. I'm typing this post on my "good" laptop which is a 350 mhz IBM thinkpad, my "good" desktop computer is a 1 ghz Athalon that I bought 4 years ago and during that time I have never payed more than $20 for a PC game. No, that doesn't mean that I pirate them all, that means that I wait till the price goes down, or I get them as gifts. I don't have cable TV or satalite. I get one local channel barely. My TV is a measly 19 inches and that was also a gift that we didn't pay for. It's so old that you have to use an adaptor to get a DVD player attached to it. We DO have a DVD player, that was a splurge a few Christmases ago, but hardly any DVD's. We like to get them from the Library. I didn't have a cell phone until work got me one and they pay the bill, I have never had a pager. We don't have a long distance plan. We use an internet-based calling card that gives us 2.9 cents per minute (it's called onesuite if you are interested). I do have to admit though, that I pay for broadband internet. That's my one splurge. I get DSL from Verizon for $35 per month, but hey, everyone has their vices right?
So, I'm not trying to say how great we are or anything, my only point is that people can afford a lot more than they realize if they take a good look at things. In my opinion there is nothing more important in my life than making sure that my children have a good home and to me that means that they have a mother that can be there for them. I'm willing to sacrifice anything that I have to meet that goal. Sure, it means that I may not have the latest geek toys when they come out, but it also means that when times come along like last year when I was out of work for three months, I've got the money to cover it with out going into debt or sending my wife back to work. Also please note that this is just what I want for MY family. I'm not passing any judgements against people in other situations, or single-parent families, or women that want to work. Just know that saying "I can't afford X" is a lot like saying "I don't have time for X". We make time for what we really want to do, just like we spend money on what we really want.
SCO.com uses Linux
Everything I say is pure speculation... so it's speculation answering speculation :)
:) ) that believe in time travel from a scientific point of view). Kip mentions how Lev Davidovich Landau made up the theory of neutron core to keep himself from being executed by Stalin (there was a purge to eliminate "enemies of the state" (which pretty much meant ANYONE that Stalin didn't like)). Just like how Landau made up the neutron core to save himself, Iraqi scientists would have made up stuff to keep themselves safe. Saddam in all likelihood never knew how far the programs really were.
:( ).
1) Saddam had a WMD development program, but it was all on computer, on the drawing board, as it were.
Iraq probably had a WMD program but it was probably concentrated on chemical weapons. I don't think they really had a program for nuclear weapons (at least nothing substantial or well developed).
2) Saddam lied to his military. Each general thought the next one over had CW, even though his own unit did not.
I think it would be the other way around. The Iraqi scietists lied to Saddam. Saddam wouldn't have known about the technology and the science behind it. He would just rely on this scientists. In situations like these (dictatorships), the scientists fabricate stuff to keep themselves alive. I'm reading Black Holes and Time Warps by Kip Thorne (THE definitive book on time travel for non-scientists--highly recommended to those (like me
On top of that, it should be noted that most of the "information" that USA used came from the Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. Chalabi's goal was always to take over Iraq and run it by himself, which he seems to have done (although the proposed "democratic" elections might get in his way). Who knows how much of this was fabricated? It is quite plausible that a lot of the information was fabricated.
3) Saddam had made covert threats. This was meant to stave off both an Iranian invasion and a Shiite rebellion.
True but the threats weren't really directed against the Shiites or the Iranians. It was directed at other countries (particularly Saudi Arabia and Isreal). Iran has never had any intention to invade Iraq; the Shiites are not going to be scared by WMD (what diference would that make? He was already using chemical weapons and that was doing the "job" just fine
4) Interestingly, Iraq didn't lie very much in their arms assessment they gave to the UN.
They didn't lie because they had nothing to lie about. The UN destroyed nearly all of his weapons and various other techniques (like sanctions, boycotts by other governments, close minotoring of Iraqi money) meant that he couldn't get the equipment. To show you how badly Iraq was, it didn't even have a fully functioning airforce. They apparently couldn't get parts and repair their MIG planes. I don't think a single Iraqi jet did a sortie (i.e. bomb) or intercept US planes during the Iraqi War (aka Gulf War II). There was nothing to lie about because he didn't have anything.
5) Hans Blix said he could finish inspections in six months.
He never really said that. He said that inspections could uncover WMD. He never gave a time frame. THe UN generally doesn't give time frames on anything (including combating malaria, peacekeeping missions, eliminating poverty, etc--no time frames in any of these, other than stated hopeful goals).
6) Bush knew that if Blix didn't find WMD, there was no way in hell he'd get the votes for war. Considering how conservatives have been clamoring for the overthrow of Saddam for YEARS, I don't think this is surprising or unsubstantiated. O'Neill + PNAC make a pretty convincing argument on their own.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
I hope your not taking the line that Iraq was a terrorist threat by linking the Iraq war with 9/11. 9/11 is used too often as an excuse for the war with Iraq. The problem is with that logic is that the war with Iraq was planned by the White House prior to 9/11 and the White House knew that there was no WMD thanks to CIA reports.