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.
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"
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
And we've got these people in charge of national security?
Wil
wiki
...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
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
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
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
By the way, Liddy was not a Democrat. He helped run the Nixon campaign.
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