Slashdot Mirror
Not All the DOJ Missing Emails Are Missing
Hylas sends us to Democracy Now for a newscast on the missing emails, an interview with investigative journalist Greg Palast. Here's Palast talking about the fired US attorney from New Mexico, David Iglesias: "Iglesias believes the real reasons for the firings are in what are called the missing emails, emails sent by the [White House political advisor Karl] Rove team using Republican Party campaign computers, which Rove claims can't be retrieved. But not all the missing emails are missing. We have 500 of them. Apparently the Rove team misaddressed their emails, and late one night they all ended up in our inboxes in our offices in New York City." This story has had zero play in the US media; it's been being carried on the BBC.
Mod me troll, but that article is horribly written. That, or I'm still not awake. Please proof this stuff....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
This story has had zero play in the US media; it's been being carried on the BBC. It is not playing in the US media because no law was broken when those attorneys were fired. The Democrats were trying to score political points by attempting to make a scandal out of it. When the American people understood that the firings were legal, then the scandal issue fizzled.
Things you have to buy to believe this guy:
.org instead of .com , for those of us who type in domain names constantly this may be feasible since our brains are probably a few words ahead and .org is in the muscular memory of our typing fingers just as much as .com , but these are bureaucrats and politicians who we're being told aren't all that savvy...
a) They "typoed"
b) They manually typed in the addresses. Just this point doesn't make sense. How many addresses do you manually type in? Not click from an address book, not type in the first couple letters and hit TAB to auto-complete... If anything the less savvy user would lean on crutches like mailing lists and auto-completion far more than manually typing in long addresses.
c) If he's really REALLY so interested in the right thing happening, and all that, why hasn't he forwarded these to the congressmen who are looking into these matters instead of announcing them on the radio?
d) How hard, exactly, is it to fake an SMTP message again? What kind of authenticity can he lend to this? How does he know that someone didn't fake the mail and send it to that domain? Heaven knows it couldn't have been spoofed, right?
Oh yeah, and he happens to be on the publicity trail for a new book now is he? hurm...
The reason this isn't getting much media hype is probably that most of the MSM have strong enough doubts as to the credibility of the evidence as to make it non viable to bring up.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
Perspectives are a funny thing, like all those people saying the media is controlled by Republicans, it always seemed to me that the media is controlled by liberals.
That isn't an issue of "perspective". It's a total lack of any knowledge or even common sense on your part.
There are a few huge corproations who own almost all of our media.
The only two groups the republicans cater to are religious extremists and huge corporations.
And they all said the Republicans were for the big companies and Demos were for the little guy, but it seemed to me the policies of the demos kept the so-called little guy down.
The Republicans are for the big companies and *against* the average citizen. There is no possible way to dispute that.
That has nothing at all to do with the fact that the Democrats are scum as well.
Even if they were fired for political reasons, it doesn't matter. It is still legal. Bill Clinton fired those US Attorneys for political reasons, not performance reasons, and it was perfectly legal.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The only accusations I read, were "firings for political reasons". D'oh!.. A political appointee fired for a political reason... Can you show a link detailing the accusation you bring up?
I'm not, actually... Doesn't look good — and that's the motivation for the political theater the Democrats are happy to engage in — but unlikely to be illegal. The explanation is simple: there are many crimes, unfortunately, and not all of them can be prosecuted. It is the Executive's prerogative to set the priorities and to decide, if there is a crime more important than corruption.
We may disagree, but neither of us are the President...
Not sure about the right. The need is indisputable, but the only right is to elect someone else come next elections...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I asked for allegations of corruption investigations being suppressed by the Administration.
Instead, you are posting evidence of a corruption investigation being hastened (properly or improperly) by a lawmaker.
Two wrongs out of two... Care to try again?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I asked for allegations of corruption investigations being suppressed by the Administration.
Where? I looked at your past postings on the subject, and don't see anything that matches that claim. I do see what I was responding to:
gilroy: If the attorneys were fired as a way to interfere in ongoing corruption investigations
mi: The only accusations I read, were "firings for political reasons". D'oh!.. A political appointee fired for a political reason...
mi: Can you show a link detailing the accusation you bring up?
A senator pushing for charges to be brought is interfering in investigations. The article goes on further to claim Rove's involvement in the firings, which ties things to the Administration.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Oh, well, getting a story straight is always a problem, is not it?
Yeah, ask Alberto Gonzales about that... or Cheney about WMDs, or Feith about pre-war stove-piping, or George Bush about his... well anything...
You're trotting out some line about "getting stories straight" in defense of the Bush Administration?
As Bart Simpson would say, "The ironing is delicious..."
=Tod
Bill Gates - Creationist?!?
If you remember back to 9/12/2001, there was a great yearning to be united in the struggle.
The Patriot Act (which is not completely bad, by the way, you should actualy read it if you have not), and the Iraq war resolution were acts of trust by a Congress in that atmosphere of unity, trust which was betrayed. The trust was misplaced, as future events demonstrated.
I never trusted Bush, so I was against the Patriot Act and the Iraq War Resolution, but I'm not the sort of person who automatically dismiss somebody because they come from the Republican party. It's time for Republicans to own up and take their lumps like a man. Their guys screwed up big time. They should go back and rebuild the party they thought they had, not make lame excuses that "everybody does it". That is shameful. Everybody lies from time to time, but it doesn't mean there is no difference between an ordinary, flawed human being and a pathological liar.
Step back, and look at the big picture. Is there a dimes worth of differnence in the period 2001-2006 from periods of Democratic control? If you don't see it, you need your eyes examined.
Maybe the country is irretrievably ruined. Maybe there is no decency, honestry or honor left in it. I don't think we're there yet, nor do I think Republicans should give up on the country, or even their party, because their party has been hijacked.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
By what standard? what is the magical moment when its 'close enough' that we should start the conversation as to if it is or if it is not human. Hell there were slave owners who thought Africans were less evolved humans and thus not accorded human rights.
It has no sentience?
There are those who argue until a kid is able to grasp some really basic concepts (well past birth) it is nothing but a bundle of reflexes. When we start to have a conversation about what is and is not life I tend to err on the side of caution. Please point me at you sentience meter so we can measure this.
An ant is a more complicated organism?
Several means three, are you really saying an ant is more complex than this?
* Thyroid gland has matured and your baby begins producing hormones which will be used throughout his or her life.
* In boys, the prostate gland develops
* In girls, the ovaries move from the abdomen to the pelvis
* Your little one may have learned to suck his thumb by this point!
* Your child's bones are getting harder and stronger by the day!
* Your baby's skin is very transparent still
* Lanugo (very fine hair) covers the baby's body and will continue to grow until 26 weeks gestational age - Generally this will be shed prior to birth. Its purpose is to help protect baby's skin while in all that water!
* Your baby is 3.42 inches (8.7cm) long and weighs about 1.52 ounces (43 grams) - approximately the weight of a letter!
You might as well pick up a handful of dirt and say it has the 'potential for human life' because its particles could be transformed into an embryo with the right technology.
If I take a handful of dirt and put it alone it a perfect environment what will it become? Nothing but dirt. If you have the technology to make life from dirt please share it with the group. By that logic a full grown person is nothing but a mass of chemicals and has no intrinsic rights either.