Slashdot Mirror
Bush Campaign Offices Burglarized
DesScorp writes "The Washington State offices of the Bush campaign were burglarized, and computers with sensitive campaign data were stolen. The computers belonged the executive director and officer in charge of the 'get out the vote' campaign; one was set to be delivered to another office within the state. The staff says that secret strategy information and voting data are on the computers, and ironically, they're comparing it to Watergate. The staff blames Democratic Party activists intent on stealing the information. Of course, they deny this."
1. Democratic Party operatives stole the computers. 2. Republican Party operatives stage a fake theft to make the Democrats look bad.
----
This concludes our transmission to Oceania.
Karl Rove also denies any involvement.
:-)
It couldn't be some third party that is opposed to Bush, but isn't the Democratic Party.
3. Democratic Party operatives planted bags of pretzels, bicycles, and a Segway in an attempt to do in the incumbent president.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Is this the "big surprise" Rove was talking about?
Those laptops were not running Free Software, as should be befitting of a party that defends Freedom. I have reformatted and installed Debian GNU/Linux; as soon as I get X, the sound card, the ethernet card, and the USB working, I will return them with a polite note.
-- Smelly GNU/Hippie 'puter poacher
What I suspect is that it was a routine case of people stealing other peoples' stuff. If they were after the data, there are other more surreptitious means to go about this, but I get the feeling that they were more concerned with the hardware than the data.
This sig no verb.
Ok, that was lame.
The following is from the document they found:
Bush's 72 hour plan
Right. Because the democratic modus operandi has always been a rock through a window at 4 in the morning.
Jherico
What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"
Why would DU claim that it was a Democrat plot to discredit the Republicans? That's not consistent with their (DU's) political viewpoint.
Where's Forrest Gump when we need him?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Communist Hollywood Elite Liberals Take Time Off From Killing Babies And Homosexual Intercourse To Steal Computers From Ordinary Plain-Spoken Republicans Who Want The Best For America
That would be fair and balanced. Your version comes across as something Noam Chomsky might say.
That is all.
Feel free to mod me down at the same time, so long as you mod parent up.
In other news, if said computers were using encrypted filesystems, none of this would matter. Could be a simple computer theft, could be DNC dirty tricks, could be anything. It just wouldn't matter.
We live in a nation where we can freely (mostly) obtain and use encryption, and people choose not to do so.
When will they ever learn?
May we never see th
The republican party recently learned of the theft of very sensitive voting machine related data from Republican Party national headquarters.
One big-wig Republican party guy to another, "Hey, remember that guy in our office in Washington state that is always talking about voting machines?"
Other big wig, "Umm... Oh yea... I think I get your point, we want everyone to think it was the work of one fanatic to take the heat off the party, right?"
First big wig, "I'll set it up"
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
...about the need to use encryption for sensitive stuff, but that still doesn't justify the theft, especially if it was done for political purposes.
:P
Perhaps I ought to pass along the suggestion to my local party offices. Not much of a leftist-hacker crowd down here, though. Seattle, now, that's a different story.
I'll probably send that suggestion into the national GOP offices. "Hey, this maybe-liberal guy on slashdot has a really good idea...". Maybe even get you credit for it
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
And we've got these people in charge of national security?
Wil
wiki
10. hacked by democrats looking for Windows XP serial#
9. kicked off IRC for inventing words
8. tricked into running a Word macro virus by therightisright@hotmail.com
7. accidentally installed YouthfulIndiscretion XP, regrets it
6. voting negatively in the online polls at homosexualmarriage.org
5. busy checking paypal transactions from SaudiArabia@hotmail.com
4. engaged in IM session at Halliburton.com
3. busy DDoS-ing iran.com
2. browser choked on pretzel.com
1. infected by trojan whilst browsing alt.sex.binary.gay.marriage
As opposed to the normal Slashdot posts that are models of clarity and objectivity?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
BTW, anyone know where to find the debate video for d-l? Not streaming, straight download, be it torrent or otherwise. Thanks.
itadakimasu
(Just to clear that up.)
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
They act like it's just two parties. They automatically blame the Democrats. What if it was people from the Green or Libertarian Party.
Oh wait, I forgot those two groups have no chance of winning for President so lets automatically blame our biggest competitor.
Anything that comes out of Washington D.C. these days just makes me sick to my stomach.
No sig for you!!
Mediocrity of the masses is no excuse for mediocrity.
Jherico
What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"
...during an election in, I believe, the mid-70's. (See "Bush's Brain".) All the reporters could tell Rove was behind it, but had to report the bullshit anyway. That's what will happen this time.
The lapdog media will fall for Rove's tricks every chance they get. Like with McCarthy, they have to report lies if someone important says them.
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
There are photos of the Republican Ninjas at the DNC . Hawaiian shirt and patent leather shoes. http://aliensandchildren.org/ThoughtScreenHats.htm
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/?q=node/view/938&PHP SESSID=d9a9956c80c5aacf55c9a6b7faea173d
Bev Harris reports that somebody in Snohomish County, WA used fake technician's credentials to get polling place access on the day of the primaries (9/14/04). Election workers report that it's "Democrats" doing it - we don't know (yet) how that determination was made...bumper sticker maybe? They got a car license plate number...
Bev is filing a public records request to try and get details on that case.
If it IS the same bunch and we can cross-link the Snohomish investigation to this one, we may be able to catch whodunit.
You know, I bet these were those activist judges you keep hearing about.
Anyway, I'm sure all the sensitive data (if not the entire hard drive) was encrypted, so the only thing we have to worry about is the terrorists finally getting their hands on encryption software.
let's not forget the 4th possible scenario...
4. Republican Party operatives unsuspectingly invited the theives after breaking the window themselves during a football practice session. Apparently they're planning on infiltrating one of Kerry's live campaign speehs and tossing him a football.
"There is also evidence that the Democrats are taking a page from Watergate history."
Give me a break. There is not even the slightest shred of evidence supporting anything of the sort in that article. There is an entirely unfounded accusation (from the State Republican Party Chairman; hardly an unbiased source) but not a hint of any proof. If this is your idea of evidence I certainly hope you never get called to jury duty.
It seems like kind of a stupid idea to do this. Seriously.
Okay, consider what would have to be true for the Demms to be behind it. They want some data from a computer. They don't pay someone on the inside to get keys or another form of access. They have a plan to obtain the campaign plans from a laptop. Instead of taking lockpicks or anything else that one might expect from professional espionage types, they smash in a window -- using a rock. That's the sort of thing that you'd find at the scene, and unless there were gloves used, there are probably fingerprints left on the thing. They take the laptops.
We've had Watergate -- we know what happens to politcos that get caught fucking around with election campaigns. They ignore Watergate and public reaction to that. They leave evidence all over the scene in a very obvious break-in right before an election -- there's no way that anyone can miss a smashed window with a stone on the ground and missing laptops. Even if they couldn't *possibly* come up with a more intelligent plan for stealing the data, they still feel that the spectre of a Watergate is worth the stealing of a laptop.
No, I just don't buy that it's the Demms (at least the party). It'd just be stupid.
Could it be someone pro-Bush that wants to tie up the Demms in a scandal right before the election? Maybe. That seems a little far-fetched, though. It's a terribly visible dirty trick. I'm not sure that I'd want to do something like that -- there has to be *some* sort of more effective, less risky want to pull things than to try framing the Demms.
A common thief? Maybe. They did say that the laptops of the top three people were the ones taken. As the Republican guy said, that seems a bit unusual. Unless, of course, the laptops of the three biggest head honchos were the flashiest computers.
And then, of course, there's the oddball concept -- maybe it's just someone who isn't intending to influence the election one way or another *or* wants the computers -- who just gets their jollies from screwing with the people and the media. This is pretty much guaranteed to produce a shitstorm. Kind of like the guys that send fake anthrax to people to screw with them. They get to read about themselves in the newspaper, and love it.
So, I dunno. It could be the Demms, but if it is, they're being *awfully* stupid.
May we never see th
"...ironically, they're comparing it to Watergate."
How is a comparison to Watergate ironic?
1) Watergate was the national campaign headquarters for a national political party.
2) The Watergate burglars were caught red-handed in the offices
Trying to equate this to Watergate is really weak.
---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
There have been plenty of analyses. The common letters (etaoinshrdlu...) are worn like they would be on a typewriter, and all the letters show slight variations in vertical and horizontal position and impression, just as they would be on a real mechanical typewriter. No one who had the patience for that kind of fakery would slip up on the obvious ones like letterhead.
Furthermore, interviews with the colonel's secretary says the tone of the letter and the information in it was exactly what was being talked about in the office at the time, that everyone knew how pissed the colonel was about Bush playing fast and loose with his obligation, and the pressure from above and outside to let Bush get away with it.
Bush signed up for 5 yars flight obligation and walked away from the last two years.
As for the rest of your comments, Bush is a lying whining coward. Sitting for 7 minutes reading a book like a deer in headlights while the country is udner attack --- what kind of bravery is that? Lying about the reasons for going to war is a lot more important than Clinton lying about who he had sex with. Whining about Kerry flipflopping when Bush has flipflopped over nation building, fiscal prudence, states rights, government bureaucracy -- he isn't even a republican!
He can't even take responsibility for anything. He hasn't even got the guts to say I was wrong, I made a mistake. He just barges on as though nothing has happened. That takes real moral courage. The buck sure doesn't stop anywhere near the White House these days.
Anyone who likes Bush is blind. Anyone who thinks he knows what he is doing has blinders on in addition.
Infuriate left and right
Isn't the point of a laptop to take it with you ?
I have never known anyone, at least in the busness world, to leave their laptops at work
Just kind of strange to me.
It is just as plausible to say that Watergate was a Democrat plot to make Nixon look bad.
Everyone here needs to read my journal
... a Democratic/Liberal equivalent to G. Gordon Liddy. But the mind just boggles. I suspect the thief just wanted the hardware.
60 Minutes II Editors,
To me, the Bush documents publicized by CBS are plausible.
I was prepared to believe the Bush documents were forgeries because of reading someone's comment before I saw the documents. However, when I saw the documents, I laughed. The Bush documents contain an artifacts, such as a shift in baseline, that is characteristic of the typesetting machines of the time.
I think I have provided valuable information below about the plausibility of the documents. The information gives perhaps useful ideas about how to continue the CBS investigation.
It is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to the Bush documents that some machine that a critic has chosen cannot do typesetting. Critics should just choose another machine that can.
Decades ago, it sometimes happened that I would go to some company that did both typesetting and typing to pick up my typing, and be handed, not pages of typing, but pages of typesetting film. The first time that happened I was scared, because if the company thought that had I ordered typesetting, the cost would be very high. I said something like, "I wanted this typed, not typeset." As proof I said something like, "It's just an informal business letter." The woman behind the counter laughed and said something like, "I was at the typesetter when someone handed me your job, and I was too lazy to get up and go over to the typewriter." "But what about the cost?" "I'm only charging you $4."
The woman thought she was doing me a favor (while wasting her company's typesetting film), but she wasn't. Sure the letter looked wonderful, but typesetting was so psychologically powerful back then that the fact that a letter was typeset would distract the reader from the message. (It should be obvious that I copied the letter from the typesetting film to a piece of paper.)
Why did she typeset the letters? Maybe she was training someone in how to use the typesetting machine. Maybe she discovered that she didn't have any more of the one-use carbon ribbons. Or maybe she was just lazy, as in one of the incidents that happened to me.
NOTHING about what you see when you print a document typed in Times New Roman in Microsoft Word has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with either Microsoft Word or Microsoft Corporation.
On the computer I am using to type this, Times New Roman is supplied to me as the file times.ttf, dated 08/29/2002, 05:00 AM. If you look at the file with a tool that can view binary, you will see this message, and a lot of other heavy-duty legal language:
"This typeface is the property of Monotype Typography and its use by you is covered under the terms of a license agreement. You have obtained this typeface software either directly from Monotype or together with software distributed by one of Monotype's licensees."
Microsoft Word ONLY follows the information in this file. You can prove this to yourself by downloading and installing a copy of Open Office from www.OpenOffice.org. Open Office is better in important ways than Microsoft Office, and it is free, as in "You don't pay anything." Type anything you want in both Microsoft Office and Open Office, using the same font, and notice that it looks identical.
Open Office did not automatically superscript the "th". I didn't like that superscripting thirty years ago, and I don't like it now. Only a company like Microsoft, that has limited interest in idealistic products, would make the superscripting of "th" automatic. In 1972 it had already been decades since that was in fashion, although it persisted on some machines, and was used by novices. Even when it was "in fashion" that was only because there was a period when typesetters liked to show off what they could do.
To superscript the "th" in Open Office, I selected the "th" and chose Format/ Character/ Position/ Superscript. The output was identical to the output of the version of Microsoft Word in Office 2000.
This is not surprising, since all of the information is s
Here's a paragraph from my comment: "Nothing that I've said in this commentary until now attempts to decide whether the Bush documents in question were or were not forgeries. I have only been establishing that the documents are plausible. It appears to me that I am in a position to know what might be plausible."
All I'm saying is that it happened to me, several times, that I took letters to be typed, and they were returned looking like the Bush documents.
I've had a life-long interest in typesetting. The forger would have to be very, very knowledgeable to make those documents, and then what would be accomplished? The forger would only impress people like me.
I'd vote for the guy who got three purple hearts, a silver star, and a bronze star, anytime, over the guy who took the rich boy coward's way out and won't admit there was anything even remotely improper about it.
Attacking any of Kerry's purple hearts is attacking every purple heart ever issued. That is not to say that all were well earned. No doubt some were for mere scratches, just as LBJ got a silver star in WWII basically to get him out of the war zone; MacArthur didn't appreciate politicians gallivanting around to get votes back home. But to single out one of Kerry's three purple hearts, when he was at least over there and getting shot at and rescuing a man, is pretty damned silly.
A friend of mine was so pissed about the slimeball attacks on Kerry's purple hearts by the Bushies that when he saw a jeep with a purple heart license plate and a "Another vet for Bush" bumper sticker, he asked the guy if he had earned his purple heart. That's obnoxious as hell, but perfectly fair in the light of the Bushies attacking Kerry's purple hearts. Either check them all or leave them all alone. Don't single out Kerry.
Infuriate left and right
Let's see here ...
Being crumpled up and run through a copier for a few generations will introduce some variation in the horizontal and vertical spacing (mostly to do with the position of the scanning element.)
and
Whereas if you load up a modern version of MS Word, keep the default settings, and type up and print out the text of the memo, you get a perfect match.
So you can make it mismatch and match at the same time? Crumple it up to make it misaligned and look like a typewritten document, but it still matches Word exactly? Pretty clever!
As for not being required to finish his flight obligation, he signed documents to get into the Guard that he would spend 5 years flying, and only did three. He was ordered to take the physical, and as far as being invasive, sheesh, a standard flight physical which would have incidentally shown up his cocaine usage. He'd taken them before, and he sure as hell supports the war on drugs. I guess he just can't take the heat. He was also told that the Alabama outfit was not acceptable, went ahead on his own and flaked out from both bases anyway. That's responsibility for you!
As for who says the office attitude supported the Colonel, it's interesting that you disavow the secretary's word merely because she is a democrat. I'd guess the secretary knew more about what went on in the office than his wife or children. If he was typing up memos himself to cover his ass for Bush's outside interference, do you think it likely he'd blab to his wife? How old were his children then? I suppose they are republicans, that makes all the difference in the world.
And your last comment, what a joke. Yes, a banker embezzles, keep him in his job to deal with it, that's what you're suggesting. Pretty good. I reckon the rest of your comments are about as intelligent. Let me have your bank account while your at it, I could have some fun with that.
Infuriate left and right
A burglar might burgle a property, in which case the property has been burgled
Even if it's not factually correct or true, the parent is interesting. It may not be directly on-topic, but it's still relevent to the topic in my opinion, be it humble or otherwise.
~UP
Eat the Path.
If I had to choose between Kerry and Bush, based solely on their military service or what their military service showed of their character, it would be Kerry in a heartbeat, for the reasons stated above.
But here's how I really feel about politicians and voting and elections.
Firts, politicians are scum, but that's because we only choose scum. Look at all the flak Kerry has gotten for actually thinking about bills and voting differently as conditions change, and for giving detailed answers. What politician wants that kind of noise? Better to give soundbytes and follow some standard party line and pass on the standard lies. Politicians follow the law of evolution too, survival of the fittest, and the result is that you can't rely on what they say. besides which, even if they talk reasonably, like Kerry's long winded answers, you still can't rely on those answers, because conditions may change, and then their previous answers are useless.
So people do the natural thing, which is disregard everything substantial said by politicians. All you have left is character: how do they behave under pressure, do they act like fools, do they seem like they use their common sense, do they seem to understand and think and generally be someone you can rely on? And the only way to get that answer is to watch them in public. That's where sitting politicians have the advantage, people see them all the time on TV, read about them every day in the newspapers. Very few challengers get that same kind of publicity. That's why Arnie became governor of California, how Reagan became president.
My voting preference thus is biased against incumbents. Throw the rascals out! They get so much publicity that few challengers can match, and I figure they are lining their pockets, either financially or contact-wise or thru some inner ego kind of budget, that one term is enough. Throw the rascals out and get in fresh inexperienced rascals who haven't built up the contacts and corruption machinery.
You could call Kerry an incumbent, since he has been in the senate for what, 20 years? But it is a different office, so the edge goes towards him.
Secondly, look at the American federal givernment over the last 30 years, and the only time it came close to working the way a government should work was 1994 and a year or two afterwards, when the voters got so fed up with Clinton corruption that they voted in a republican congress. Sudenly the two sides actually had to talk to each other, we had a budget surplus, and things actually got done.
Didn't take long for the noble incoming republicans to break all their promises, of course. Power corrupts. Pretty soon it was back to the same old same old, petty bickering, stalemate, you name it, nothing new, move along.
So my second bias is to make sure the congress and president are from opposite parties. I don't want crap like the PATRIOT trash rammed thru, or the bogus resolution which Shrub used to resume daddy's war. I want it to be damned hard for the government to act quickly, I want them to compromise and talk to each other and debate things.
Shrub loses there too. It's a lot less likely that either the senate or house will become democrat, so I want a democrat president.
And in fact, I live in California, which almost certainly will go for Kerry. So if he has a big enough lead here, I will not waste my vote adding to that tally, I will look at the smaller parties, and see where my vote can do the most good. If they get a certain percentage of votes, they get on the ballot next time without having to collect signatures.
Now, does any of that answer any of your questions?
Infuriate left and right
You say the documents don't count because they are forged, and they are forged because they contradict your position.
That praise of Bush is bog-standard fitness reporting. Ever heard of grade inflation? The military has it in spades. Just about everyone gets an A. You have to be really atrocious to get a bad report. Besides, no one says Bush wasn't ok to start with.
If you want to pick and choose documents, go ahead. There are a whole lot of documents, even some released by the white house, showing that he did not meet his obligation. Of course the Bushies like yourself say those documents don't count, since they don't support Bush. They say the honorable discharge proves all the others are lies. This all assumes there are no favors done in the military, which is given the lie by the very fact that Bush jumped the queue to get into the guard and never finished his flight obligation. 5 years. That covered not just Alabama, it also covered a year or two of Yale. It was not 5 years if you feel like it, or 5 years of getting dental exams. It was 5 years of flight duty. He skipped the last two. He signed an agreement for 5 years of flight duty, he walked away from the last two.
No matter how many documents you say are forged, the bare fact is that he signed for 5 years of flight duty and skipped the last two. No quibbling about crumpled photocopies or republicans kids' memories can change that.
But I guess that simple fact embarasses you, because you keep avoiding it and concentrating on crumpled Word documents that somehow get misaligned enough to look like they are typewritten yet still perfectly match Word documents, even tho the purported photocopying was surely on different copiers.
Infuriate left and right
The two sides are both so cynical I am ready to ignore them both and write in Pete Rose. If they'd each quit pandering to the other's base for a minute, they'd quickly understand how simple it is:
What the Republicans need to do is quit trying to look liberal, and instead convince middle class subdivisionites that George Bush is God's Own Candidate. They'll turn out in droves.
What the Democrats need to do is quit trying to look like anti-war-but-tough-on-terror hawks, and instead convince undecided voters that John Kerry has a firm position on some issue. They already know he isn't George Bush; he can stop running on that now.
No, the two sides keep hitting their talking points and strategizing about getting out the vote of this or that demographic.
I think I'll turn my attention to something important. Don't they know there's a pennant race going on?
sigs, as if you care.
Christ!
Next we'll have people saying "Last night I was burglarized by burglarizer"!
Or perhaps in a few years time it shall be known as getting 'burglarizered'...
WHEN WILL THE MADNESS END?
I don't care how Bush acted in the National Guard...to me I don't care if he had a stellar record there and did an outstanding job or if he snorted cocaine on the flight-line...everyone is missing the big, overall point here.
He dodged the draft! He dodged going to Vietnam. Look, there were 3 ways to get out of going to Vietnam if your number came up back then. 1, skip off to Canada. 2, be in college forever. 3, Join the National Guard.
And again, this same way of thinking can be applied to Kerry. The "Swift Boat Vets" who accuse him of false heroism in Vietnam are again missing the point too. I don't care if Kerry was a file clerk that never saw combat and stayed in Saigon...HE WAS IN VIETNAM! He went there...he didn't try to get out of it.
Our last two Presidents got out of going to the War...
So bottom line...and in case it really matters to anyone and if anyone is keeping score...Kerry went to Vietnam, Bush got out of going.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
There is something really fishy about the whole thing. Have a look at this.
On the other hand, the break-in doesn't quite have the Rovian flair. I think it was just one of those freak crimes by some anarchist.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
Look at this.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
REad the post again with that in mind.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Hey I learned a new word today!
There is no way this was done to steal political information. The crime scene makes it obvious that there was a break-in. It would be way to damaging to the campaign.
But the Bushies made such a horrendous deal out of Clinton having (legally) dodged the draft, for them to hold up Bush's Guard (non)service as Good is beyond hypocritical. Like I said, if I were basing my choice only on character showed by military service, Kerry would win in a heartbeat.
Infuriate left and right
Funny isn't it, how almost all the swift boat vets who now condemn Kerry were singing his praises in speech and writing previously, some only last year. Furthermore, those who now condemn him either weren't in service with him, weren't in his battles, or just plain weren't even in theater. One of them, who condemns his silver or bronze star, got the same medal for the same action with the same message, and no that message was not written by Kerry. And it was approved and forwarded on by some admiral who wasn't even on scene and now calls it a lie.
Anyone who puts credence in the swift boat vets is just plain blind.
Infuriate left and right
Bush signed up for 5 yars flight obligation and walked away from the last two years.
Enlistment contracts can be changed by military. My father signed up for four years active duty. At some point during his service they asked if he would like to change his enlistment to two years active duty plus four years in the Guard, the Guard units in his home state needed some more people with his specialty.
My understanding is that Bush getting out early was perfectly normal at that time. There were many pilots returning from Vietnam who wanted to transfer to the Guard. So the military made a very wise decision, they let the guy with a few hundred hours of experience out early and gave his slot to a combat vet who probably had thousands of hours of experience. That Guard only has so many slots to fill, they can't just make new ones.
Kerry also benefitted from the policies of the time. During Vietnam officers sometimes had much shorter tours than enlisted men. The military wanted to get as many officers as possible some time with a combat command. In no way am I suggesting that Kerry's wounds were scratches but few in the military would care one way or another with respect to whether to rotate this guy out or not. This policy was sometimes referred to as "ticket punching" and it was recognized as having a detrimental effect on unit cohesion and performance.
To be clear, I am not accusing Kerry of being a ticket puncher. Even if he were so what? People volunteer for the military for many reasons. Doing so to enhance a political resume is a valid reason, it should even be encouraged. Politicians should know what its like to be cold, wet, and sleeping in a mud hole. Anyone who served in the military in any capacity at all deserves respect, this includes Bush, especially since flying a single seat high performace jet is inherently dangerous. I also recall that he volunteered for some program that was sending Guard pilots to Vietname but he was not accepted. Anyone who also served in combat deserves additional respect, even if it was only for a day. How many guys got killed their first day out?
Faux news has published two entirely fake stories about Kerry in the past two days. The first was a list of fake quotes he never made, hastily withdrawn after Josh Micah Marshall blew the whistle on them. The second was reporting quotes from 'Communists for Kerry' without mentioning to their viewers that it is a Republican parody 527.
Sure political burgalries do take place. Particularly under Republican Presidents. But you really can't rush to judgement till you have some facts to go on. Otherwise you end up having to believe the wierd shit put out by the DNC claiming that Rove faked the Bush AWOL memos.
Just watch the next two debates and think to yourself how much better off the country and the world will be when the next time you hear Bush making a speech is his concession to Kerry.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I've read the analyses. Every time there was a new fact, the "experts" retreated from something they said before. The last issue was the signatures. First, they could not have been signed by the Lt. Colonel. Next, they were photocopies of the Colonel's signature. Even if the signatures were forged, that was entirely in concert with things that happened at the time. The USAF at that time was very, very, very corrupt, as in pretending that major, repetitive aircraft failures did not exist. A clerk photocopying signatures would not have been a big event. It really helps if you were there, and I was.
It's fine with me if the documents are proved forgeries. However, I haven't seen that yet. If you have a link, I would like to see it. I would like to meet the forger, too, who made documents that look genuine to me and fake to almost everyone else. It was a lot of work to impress me, just one guy, a guy that the forger could easily guess might not exist.
Back then we really struggled with the shortcomings of the typesetting equipment we had. The cheaper equipment needed constant maintenance. The documents look like they were done on a machine that needed maintenance. That was a big joke back then, because it meant that the machine was either stolen, or someone got the machine and didn't want to spend the money to maintain it. Usually someone who did not want to spend the money was someone who was an enthusiast like me. Usually they got the machine on loan from someone who had a lot of money and not much understanding of how difficult the machines were to operate, and was embarrassed at wasting so much money, and wanted the machine out of sight. It was something we kidded about.
The big issue is that George W. Bush acts and thinks like an alcoholic. Alcoholics are usually angry people who act out their anger in a destructive way. 13,000 innocent Iraqis and their families have suffered, and tens of thousands of others. Before, Saddam Hussein was killing Iraqis, and the Iraq government was somewhat stable. Now the U.S. government is killing Iraqis, and the Iraq government is less stable, and you pay. Is that, in your judgement, an improvement?
Some people say it will be at least 50 years until the U.S. government can build a good reputation again. All because of one highly conflicted man who is in power because he sells the U.S. government to the highest bidder.
Proving whether George W. Bush dropped out of the Air National Guard because he could not pass the drug tests begun in the Guard on the month he dropped out is not necessary. The Bush administration has carried conflict of interest in U.S. government to a new level. They have also carried deniability to a new level. Three movies and 35 books tell a little of the story: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government. Some of those books were written by Republicans. Some of the books were written by former members of the Bush administration. There is an overwhelming amount of material; however, because of the carefully maintained deniability, in many cases we may never know exactly what happened. If you didn't read the books, you have no way of knowing how bad the corruption is.
You cannot develop an accurate opinion by listening to the carefully crafted phrases from media employees who would lose their jobs if they seemed to indicate a preference for one candidate over another. Remember, the media exists to make money. Unfortunately, we don't have directly supported media, only ad supported media, and advertisers, understandably, are careful not to alienate anyone.
See this section of the same article: The psychological effects of alcoholism provide a framework for understanding the Bush administration.
--
George W. Bush's brother was on
This was a few weeks ago:p 13,0,6455949.story?coll=all-newslocal-hed
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-b3_5breakinse
MERE COINCIDENCE!?!?
Well, yes, it probably is.
Eh?
No! He walked away from it. He does not say he got an early out...
0 04Sep11?language=printer
& storyid=632731
"Bush requested and was granted special permission to end his six-year hitch eight months early. He was released in October 1973 to to allow him to attend Harvard Business School." http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=131
"The records that I have been able to see show a young lieutenant who was very aggressive, a good participant in the program for 3 1/2 years," said retired Maj. Gen. Paul A. Weaver Jr., who headed the Air National Guard between 1998 and 2002. "Then, near the end, the records show that he was a minimally satisfactory participant."" http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14627-2
This guy may be a Bush supporter but he brings up many interesting points and insights, one of which being that getting out early for various reasons was normal: "Thus, the active-duty force as well as the Air National Guard and Reserve forces were very accommodating to many who wanted to pursue alternative career paths (such as going to Harvard Business School). In fact, these sorts of administrative actions (early releases) helped alleviate the pilot-surplus challenges facing the military. Just as Lt. Bush's supervisor released him from the Air National Guard to go to Harvard, I released a pilot from the Air Force months early when I was commander of the 4442nd Tactical Control Group so he could participate in the pilot-hiring cycle of Delta Airlines." http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail
http://www.loveliberty2004.com
Never forget, Karl Rove was a student of Lee Atwater, the inventor of "ratfuck" dirty politics. One of the trick that Mr. Rove has used again, again and again is to plant a bug or fake a burglary to smear the opponent of his client.
Besides, this doesn't sound like the Democrats' style. They also remember how Watergate began, and have almost always been on the receiving end. Hell, we even have the attempt to hack candidate Ginny Schrader's computers, as well as the DSCCC computer break-in, the Senate computer snooping, the attempt to hijack Senator Clinton's web site . . . the list goes on and on.
Considering the current polling, pretending that somebody stole stuff from a state campaign headquarters may seem to Mr. Rove to be an acceptable risk, and one that unfortunately fits his modus operandi all too well.
According to Merriam-Webster, it actually happened the other way around. "Burgle" is a back-formation.
Why would anyone steal computers from the campaign for the information on them? These are Windows machines, you send an email with the subject line RE: your photos, add a little email attachment, and boom, your in - total control of the machine.
I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
Bush's alcoholism is a matter of the most extreme importance. For example, look at this: Is Bush drinking NOW?. For a more in-depth analysis, see this: The psychological effects of alcoholism provide a framework for understanding the Bush administration. Remember, Bush quit the Air National Guard the same month the ANG instituted drug testing.
You said, "If Col. Killian routinely had his secretary type documents of this type (and she said that he did), then why is it plausible that they were sent off to be typeset, when she herself stated that they reflected things she herself had typed."
If you were in the USAF at the time, it is plausible. Remember, these are people who have agreed to kill anyone, anytime, simply on the order of their government. Also, people in leadership positions were less educated then. And, the alcoholics were in the majority. They didn't want anyone opposing them, since their job depended on no one fully realizing the truth. The official rules were that they would be fired if discovered. Many of them had very little employability outside the Guard or regular Air Force. Being discovered was equivalent to losing job, family, and being on the street.
For that reason, you didn't want anyone to see memos that you wrote that opposed this behavior. Yet you needed the memos in case there was a big investigation. It was very capricious.
It's plausible that Lt. Colonel Killian was especially concerned on a weekend, or during a time when his secretary was on vacation, and took his handwritten notes to a typesetter in Houston, and asked that they be typed. Someone typeset them instead. As I said, that happened to me. Then, when the secretary returned, he handed his notes to her to type and translate into the strict military language of the time.
There was a lot of insistence on petty things, and not much attention was given to important things. For example, the model of aircraft after the one that Bush flew, the F-106 Delta Dagger (he flew the Delta Dart), had a VERY, VERY high failure rate. Some of the failures were due to parasitic oscillations in amplifiers with faulty solder joints. Everyone pretended that the F-106 was operational. However, if you used a few wrong words in a memo, someone would make a hassle over it.
I'm not the only person who thinks the documents look real. For example, see I'm an Expert, and I Say They're Not Forged. When you struggled with the old typesetting machines as much as I did, it is easy to find it laughable that someone would know enough to try to impress you by copying all the quirks.
--
Bush: "When Saudis attack, invade Iraq."
Anyway, "you didn't want anyone to see memos that you wrote that opposed [alcoholic] behavior" was what you said. *Why* in the name of all that's holy would LTC Killian take his notes to Houston to get them typed up, rather than have his secretary (whom he evidently trusted) type them up, regardless of whether he had to wait for her to get back from vacation. Did she need them typed first, for some reason?
That's the part that makes this less than plausible to me. It's not about whether they had to be secretive or who was an alcoholic, it's the assumption that there would have been a passably good reason for him to have had someone other than his sectetary type the memos up for him at all. Again, if your whole goal is to fool people, and you want to pass something off on national TV, it's not laughable to try to impress the people likely to be validating the document. It's sensible, in fact. The fact that you're not the only person who thinks they *look* appropriate (not real) bears that out.
They are atypical of normal typed memos, barring an unusual instance where they were typeset for some nebulous reason by someone other than LTC Killian's secretary, and there isn't anything to indicate that there would be a decent reason for that to have happened, especially because of the nature of the memos.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law