E-Mail Hack Exposes Bush Family Pictures, Correspondence

New submitter rHBa sends this article about another high-profile email account breach: "The apparent hack of several e-mail accounts has exposed personal photos and sensitive correspondence from members of the Bush family, including both former U.S. presidents. The posted photos and e-mails contain a watermark with the hacker's online alias, 'Guccifer.' ... Included in the hacked material is a confidential October 2012 list of home addresses, cell phone numbers, and e-mails for dozens of Bush family members, including both former presidents, their siblings, and their children. ... Correspondence obtained by the hacker indicates that at least six separate e-mail accounts have been compromised, including the AOL account of Dorothy Bush Koch, daughter of George H.W. Bush and sister of George W. Bush. Other breached accounts belong to Willard Heminway, 79, an old friend of the 41st president who lives in Greenwich, Connecticut; CBS sportscaster Jim Nantz, a longtime Bush family friend; former first lady Barbara Bush’s brother; and George H.W. Bush’s sister-in-law. "

Comments

Re:Unless You're Aaron Swartz

[Archangel Michael]

Aaron Swartz kill himself, it wasn't a government that did it to him. If you can't stand the heat, don't go into the kitchen.

Re:*shiver*

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheney?

Re:For lying us into a war...

[sumdumass]

We attacked Iraq despite there being no link to 9/11. If we wanted to punish the country responsible for 9/11 we would have invaded Saudi Arabia since 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudis. We didn't attack Iraq because of WMDs. Other countries have active WMD programs and weapons, but the Iraqis had neither. Even supporters of the war have largely stopped trying to use 9/11 and WMDs as rationales for the war and shifted instead to liberating the Iraqis from Hussein. However there are dictators all over the world, some of whom are worse than Hussein. Yet we didn't attack them, we attacked Iraq. The question is why, and only Bush, Cheney, and high ranking members of his administration know the answer.

We invaded Iraq because of 9/11 not because Iraq was behind 9/11. Iraq certainly did have ties to the Taliban and did actively and openly support terrorist groups. We have records of wounded taliban and al qaeda soldiers being treated in Iraq for wounds received in battle in Afghanistan. We have public statements of Saddam offering the families of suicide bombers a 25k pension for losing their sons and daughters.

Anyways, back to the because of 9/11. I know bush was not the most articulate person in the world. But he made it clear to anyone caring to listen that in the shadow of 9/11, we couldn't sit by and wait for something to happen trying to stop it before reacting as was largely the practice before. instead, we needed to take out potential threats before they became real threats. The entire WMDs revolved around Saddam's purposeful manipulation of information that made UNSCOM reports appear like he was hiding things as well as making neighboring nations think he still had a WMD program. After saddam's capture, he admitted that he had no WMD program but wanted it to appear as so because he feared all the neighboring countries he had pissed off over the years would see them as weak and invade if they publicly acknowledge they no longer had them. Bush said because we cannot confirm, we must assume and we can't take the risk. Cheney was convinced they were still there and the programs were still active.

So because of 9/11, we invaded Iraq not because Iraq was behind 9/11, but because they posed a substantial risk to the US through their connections to terrorists and this unconfirmed WMDs. Because 9/11 happened, the policy was adopted that best way to avoid another is to stop countries from harboring, supplying, and aiding terrorist groups. Iraq fit that description.