Slashdot Mirror
Colin Powell's Private Email Account Has Been Hacked (theverge.com)
According to The New York Times, Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has been hacked and a password-protected archive of his personal emails has been published by DC Leaks. The Verge reports: DC Leaks is the same site that first published emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee, which many took as an explicit effort to influence the U.S. election process. Many experts in the U.S. intelligence apparatus have attributed that attack to the Russian government, although no public attribution has been made. Thus far, there's no evidence tying Powell's hack to Russia, and similar hacks have been carried out by mischievous teens without government affiliation. The immediate result of the hack has been political fallout for Powell himself. Last night, BuzzFeed News reported on an email in which Powell called Republican nominee Donald Trump a "national disgrace," and another in which he said the candidate was "in the process of destroying himself."
Even though he was an enthusiastic supporter of Obama.
This does not bode well.
All his comments look relatively restrained and not particularly "juicy," but that never stopped a good news story before.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has been hacked
A synth! First Magnolia and now this :(
Maybe if we can get some current and relevant politicians hacked, like Hillary (again,) Obama, Trump, and.... oh there are no other relevant politicians. But maybe if they get hit something meaningful will be done to ensure hardware and software manufacturers truly harden their systems for security.
Or maybe the headlong rush into, "Oooh! Teh Internets are so yummy I'll just throw all sorts of shit that don't belong on computers out there and get an app for that!" should finally go away.
Nah.......
People stopped annoyingly pronouncing his name as Co-lon instead of Colin.
Colin Powell never should have talked shit about Donald Trump. You mess with the bear and you get the h4xx0rs.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Seriously go to twitter and look for
#dickingbimbos you'll see what I'm talking about
I'd be interested to know what mail servers all these hacks have been against. Are they all private servers that someone has left unmaintained in a basement for years? Are they big online servers? Are they well maintained private servers? I know some of the e-mail leaks have been social engineered but, if any weren't, it would be interesting to know how they were hacked.
He warned the DNC and Hillary to keep her cronies from blaming anything email related on him multiple times and they still tried to do it anyways like the corrupt scumbags they are.
captcha: patriot /heisenbergvoice "you're god damned right"
The summary totally ignores Powell's extremely critical remarks about Hillary, her lies, manipulation, and the public exploitation of his name against his wishes.
A lie of omission is still a lie, and that you choose to ignore these facts makes them all the more critical to examine.
We toss in Monaco for free.
The immediate result of the hack has been political fallout for Powell himself.
The guy who has no political aspirations? Nah, he's untouchable politically because he has no ambition. He is like the Buddha of US politics: having no desires, he feels no pain at loss.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Not too long ago, the Hillary campaign put out an email between her and Colin Powell. Colin Powell went out, and just used an AOL email account. He was the head of the State Department, so, so much for IT recommendations. Is it possible the AOL account was also hacked?
The generally acceptable qualities that lifted Mitt Romney almost to the presidency aren't there at all for Trump.
The general buzz is that very few people like either candidate a whole lot, this time around. But Trump is pretty far behind, plus, he is a threat to the status quo (as was Sanders, and look what happened to him.) The plainest evidence of this is the number of high level republicans who have said they will not vote for the man.
It's all over but the shouting, looks like. Of course, there will be a lot of that, both pre- and post-election. There always is.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
They hacked him.
We're blaming them for all the problems in the world now, right? Or is it China? North Korea? Terrorists? Lots of bogeymen to scare the population with. Doesn't really matter - just need bad guys to blame. Should be able to fund all sorts of spy craft stuff and take some more freedoms away. For the children!
Is Colin Powell still using an AOL account? Seems to me a well-maintained private server stands a much better chance of eluding or resisting hacking than this ancient cloud service. Security through obscurity works very well until it doesn't, and it appears that Clinton's server was never successfully hacked. Which means nothing was exposed to the public except through the court-ordered broadcasts of virtually all of it after the fact, whether or not things were on there that arguably should not have been. Sigh.
A lot of countries opposed toppling Saddam - Russia, France, Saudi Arabia, et al. Why didn't they produce evidence that Iraq did not have WMDs? Truth is that Iraq wanted to put out the impression that it had WMDs as a deterrence to Iran, w/o having them. Instead, the US took those hints and took out their regime.
FWIW, my only opposition to Saddam Hussein was his support to Hamas against Israel, and his $25k reward for each suicide bomber in Israel. I had nothing against his having WMDs or even using them (except against the Kurds). I had nothing against his annexing Kuwait, a completely useless country whose citizens have forgotten and who now commit Jihad acts against Americans, like the guy in Chattanooga. He was a useful deterrence to Iran, which is today a quasi superpower of the region. Now, the only obstacle to Iran's domination there is ISIS!!!
Russia blamed in 5, 4, 3, 2...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I would vote for Mr. Powell. He has all the characteristics of a true centerist (what I believe the president should be). He's a coalition builder a strong voice of reason. His only minor faults are that he is slightly tainted by the invasion of Iraq. I truly feel he was duped by middle managers. Why can't either party field a candidate anything like him? What we are left with is a dirty douche and a turd sandwich.
He uses Jack Daniels instead of Ethernet or 56k-modem!
Ha ha
First, to be clear, he was by all accounts a great line officer in Vietnam (long before he had stars in his collar)
Now onto the rest of his record:
After the Vietnam war, he went to Washington DC and took a White House fellowship, placing himself on the political track. Flag officers in the US generally fall into two categories: The political ones who dream of politics and the Pentagon, and warriors who want command of armies, naval fleets, etc. The political ones either slowly washout as they fail to fit-in with all the politicians at the swanky parties, or they become common names in the beltway who know, and are known by, all the politicians. The ones who "make it" are the ones who learn to parrot all the right political rhetoric fed to them by their masters and gradually become detached from the rank-and-file soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines
The elder Bush was ecstatic to have a high-profile black general and made him chairman of the joint chiefs. In his role under Bush41, he was they guy who pushed the idea of stopping the elimination of Saddam's forces as they ran from Kuwait on the "highway of death" and also the idea of NOT finishing the first Gulf war. This bad policy left Saddam in power, with enough military to be a pest, and with only a cease-fire in place that the allies would have to enforce and that Saddam would increasingly violate over the next decade, contributing to Bush43 feeling the need to get side-tracked into Iraq post-9/11. Saddam was shooting at American and British airmen on nearly a daily basis by the end of the Clinton administration (since Bill had been unwilling to slap him down). With Saddam becoming more belligerent and allied sanctions collapsing, Bush43 probably felt more pressure to do something big to finish his Dad's (and Powell's) mess post 9/11
Powell's public persona, built-up largely by fawning press coverage, meant that BOTH political parties talked about him as a political candidate for a few years, which is a hint that his politics are extremely flexible, as are those of most political generals and admirals (see: admiral Kirby, who seems related to Bagdhad Bob).
Bush43 made Powell his secretary of state, where Powell as a political general was willingto say anything his politician master told him to say. Remember the UN speech about mobile chem labs? A non-political general might have been more skeptical, asked a few questions, and resisted when it turned out that the intel depended on a source so unreliable he was called "curveball".
Powell was the guy who invoked the "Pottery Barn Rule" (expressed as "you break it, you own it") in Iraq. His idea was that the American people needed to re-build Iraq after the war - this lead to the decade long effort of "nation building" which cost many lives and many billions of dollars to try to restore Iraq to a condition it never had in the first place. Without Powell's policies, the US military would have come home as soon as Saddam Hussien was dead.
Read the guy's e-mails. It's quite clear he's no fan of average white people (he's fine with white elites, just not the average white taxpayer/voter) and while he calls Trump a racist for getting involved with "birtherism", he ignores the well-established FACT that Hillary's 2008 campaign started the whole thing. While SOME "birthers" probably are racists, just like many BLM types are, MANY Americans fell into the "birther" camp when they became aware that [1] Obama's own literary agent was promoting him as "born in Kenya" up until 2007, and [2] for some odd reason they could not otherwise understand, Obama was keeping his birth certificate hidden unlike any previous president. Those 2 things did not mean there was any truth to the Kenya thing, but average people did not have any other explanation, and could not imagine that Obama was actually cleverly using this to tar ALL his opponents as nutty racists (he COULD have just produced the document while running for office, as Hillary and Donald are doing with health stuff, in 2008 rather than
"Ahh, nobody likes Hilary because {#Choose_One_Heinous_Reason}"
"Hey, {#Alternate_Heinous_Disqualifier_List}! So you better not vote Trump!!"
"Hey guys, what about Johnson? He seems pretty dec'"
"Trump"! "Vote Trump!" "Trump"
"Hillary!" "Vote Hillary!" "Hillary"
"Not Johnson! {#Reference_Aleppo_Gaff}"
"{#Reference_Aleppo_Gaff}"
"{#Reference_Aleppo_Gaff}"
"...Not Johnson"
"..."
"..."
[Me: Where are their shill farms located? Can we publicly shame soms folks out of a job, or are these third world poor they're exploiting? (Because they're not so easy to leverage if they're doing to eat.)]
Your comment has a false subject. Powell has said he will not yet say who he is voting for.
Your body is also highly questionable. I remember watching at least one speech in which Powell endorsed then-Senator Obama, but I don't remember anything that approximated "enthusiastic supporter". Nor do I recall any of the marks of enthusiasm such as actively campaigning for Obama or speaking at the Democratic convention. According to my research just now, Powell only made his endorsement two weeks before the election in 2008.
One obvious lie and a highly questionable comment in such a short comment? Let me predict you are a Trump supporter, and in that case the only relevant question is "Who do you hate most?" Every Trump supporter I've met so far has been a deplorable hater, and I can only pity them. Maybe some of them can grow into less hate-filled people?
Powell is a realist. His assessment of Hillary was not particularly favorable, though I'm not sure how they compare with his personal assessment of Obama. However, it is clear that his personal assessment of Trump is extremely negative. He personally might well prefer the positions of Johnson on many issues, but he knows America has a winner-take-all system, so I predict that he will ultimately endorse Hillary or say nothing.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
You are lying, but rather than trying to clarify the lies so you can repeat them more loudly, I'll just ask the only question of relevance to a Trump supporter:
Who do you hate most?
I think such hate-filled people are rather deplorable, but I can only pity them and hope they grow up to become less full of hate.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I guess she should have waved around a bottle of 'anthrax' to justify all that bullshit.
Couldn't happen to a more deserving person. I hope every single Washington gang criminal has every secret they ever had leaked.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Didn't Powell use AOL which says a lot on his technology knowledge. Nancy Pelosi also was hacked, another clueless politician who obviously never took precautions for her email. Incredible they whine and complain when they are hacked and yet it could have been prevented. For people like politicians, criminals, terrorists and other people who would rather not have a open platform to display all their ugliness in emails. Maybe email is not for them, because data is just too hard for them to erase. Unless you Hillary Clinton who eventually finds answers and get's a scrubber for her server drives. One that even the FBI can't do anything with. Maybe these idiots will wake up some day to technology and how it can linger for years and haunt you at the wrong time. I'm not very political but neither Presidential candidate seems capable of really breathing positive life into the Presidency. Clinton is crooked, and Trump is the outsider shunned by both parties.
The reason nation building worked post WWII was that the countries involved already had democratic traditions, and self criticism, while somewhat new, was something those countries were capable of. The US didn't sit down to write constitutions from scratch - as far as West Germany went, they sat down and put together the list of things that Germans could not do. Things like putting together a constitution was something that the West Germans did, and it was nothing similar to the Third Reich. Same w/ Italy - no semblance to the Mussolini regime that had been overthrown.
That's a totally different situation from Afghanistan and Iraq. Like the mission of Operation Enduring Freedom was to topple the Taliban. What followed? The creation of a constitution in Afghanistan that states that no law shall contravene the rules of Sharia. So the same issues that one had in Afghanistan w/ the Taliban are just bound to return, and the only thing there is that the regime is not anti-US as the Taliban was. Spending billions on the reconstruction of Afghanistan to win 'hearts & minds' has bombed. How do you win the hearts & minds of people who have neither?
In Iraq, Saddam was toppled, w/ the naïve assumption that the replacement regime would be a Jeffersonian democracy, w/ Shi'ites and Sunnites singing Kumbaya. It never happened, and the reason it can't happen is that those 2 have a historical rivalry dating back to after the death of Mohammed. Like the fable of the 4 geniuses who put together a lion w/o stopping to think that the revived lion would eat them (or Trump's narration of Al Wilson's song 'The Snake' at his rallies), none of the geniuses in either the State Department or outside it stopped to consider that if the Shi'ites came to power in Baghdad, you'd have a Shi'ite Crescent of Teheran, Baghdad, Damascus and partially Beirut (w/ Hizbullah).
Allying w/ either side in this conflict - Shi'ite or Sunnite - is idiotic. None of them are our allies. While Obama deserves to be faulted for the Iran deal and a restrained policy towards Iranian boats taunting US Navy vessels in the Gulf, Bush too deserves to be faulted for regarding Saudi Arabia and Qatar as allies. The issue w/ Bush/Powell/Rice was that he saw them as 'people of faith', even though the faith in question is a barbaric one. Obama/Clinton/Kerry's problem is that when the Arab Spring started, they continued the Bush doctrine policies of 'promoting democracy' by supporting the Arab Spring, w/ disastrous results.
What was worse was letting Qatar and Saudi Arabia guide their policy on Syria. Granted - Bashar al Assad was no saint, but he wasn't running a genocide in his country when it all started. If anything, he was trying to reform things so that opposition to his regime from the Sunnis would decrease. However, the Saudis and Qataris wanted to replace his regime w/ a Sunni one in Damascus, and tried to first get the US to agree, and then used the Arab Spring as a pretext to support it. It's not like they were clean either - Bahrein too wanted democracy, and Saudi troops marched in to prop up the Hanafas. Anyway, they all started supporting their own favorite factions - be it the Free Syrian Army, Khorasan, and so on, and plunged that country into civil war.
The point I was making was that everyone who supported nation building, as well as getting rid of dictators and replacing them w/ whoever the people wanted, turned out to be wrong. The intervention in Libya, which was supported not just by Hilary & Obama but also by McCain and a whole bunch of Republicans across the board: they only turned on that policy once it turned south. This despite the fact that one of the few benefits of the Iraq war was Gadaffi voluntarily ending his WMD program, and doing what he could to restore relations w/ the West. Yeah, he was evil, but there was no reason to support his ouster when he was on a reformation trajectory. Now, Cyrenaica is completely under the control of ISIS, and Tripoli has a regim
Being a corrupt hag does not bode well for Hillary.
what a world we live in today where that combination of words can be taken serious.
It is always interesting to me when something like this comes out, and articles or posts only highlight what would make one side look bad. The media is doing it a lot with this one, with very few sights showing or highlighting what he had to say about Hillary as well. He had this to say abut Clinton, but you don't see it in many stories:
I would rather not have to vote for her, although she is a friend I respect. A 70-year person with a long track record, unbridled ambition, greedy, not transformational, with a husband still d---ing bimbos at home.
I'm not sure they would have been able to stop him. Powell has the overwhelmingly most important characteristic that ought to be required for the job of president: He doesn't want it.
Too bad that's not how it works these days. Now personally wanting the presidential powers seems to be the #1 trait of all of the serious candidates (with the apparent exception of Bernie).
However, when you do the math, I don't think the superdelegates would have been sufficient to stop him. If Powell had a more flexible (AKA less military) mindset, then I think he would have been an overwhelmingly attractive ex-Republican candidate for a lot of unhappy Democrats and crossover Republicans. The 3-way debates with him, Bernie, and Hillary would have been especially entertaining and quite competitive with Trump's antics and tantrums. Actually, if Powell were more true to his sound principles, then he's had plenty of good reasons and opportunities to leave the so-called Republican Party going back many years.
Perhaps the sad part is that a relatively nice guy like Powell would have had no chance running for the nomination of today's so-called Republican Party. Powell is no part of that brand hijack, but he is too inflexible to give up the meaningless label, and even though it is abundantly clear he has no constructive influence there. He let Dubya use him up, and I would wager that most of the so-called Republican voters now view him with disdain or even contempt.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Who is Darrell Castle? I know of Ed Mullins - the rallying point of Republican anti-Trumpers like George Will, who is stuck w/ a placeholder VP in most states, he's so brilliant!
Why do some of these pundits think that if neither Hilary nor Trump gets a majority and that the election goes to Congress where Republicans retain a majority, that they'd prefer Mullins or Johnson over Trump, who clearly was the overwhelming favorite of Republicans?
Just like this post: http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
I do not hate ANYBODY.
I do hate the destruction heaped onto our nation by the Bush family, the Clinton family, and Barack Obama.
Hillary is the worse half of the Clinton duo, but I do not hate her. She's been on a decades-long power trip and probably needs some pity, but my opposition to her has nothing to do with hate and everything to do with wanting to limit the damage to the country.
SHE was the one who pushed for "Hillary Care" in the 1990s which would have made it illegal for Americans to persue healthcare outside of government-approved channels, and rationed access to doctors indirectly and stealthily by having the government limit the number of students allowed to go into medicine and deciding which specialties they could study [you can limit government spending on hip replacementsby not training enough docs to do them and then the backlog gets so long that most people give up or die before getting one]. Her plan actually said healthcare was too expensive because we had too many doctors! You can bet the elites would have gotten loopholes to allow them to fly to other countries for care or have "concierge doctors". She rolled-out her proposal with lots of flowery and hopeful rhetoric like Obama would later use for Obamacare, but then documents leaked out and those of us who read them were shocked. The documents prover her sales job was completely dishonest. It became easy to rally the public to oppose that nightmare, but unfortunately it taught the Obama team a lesson and they did a much better job pushing the bad-but-far-better-than-Hillarycare Obamacare.
She's the one who fired the non-partisan carreer government employees at the White House who made all travel arrangements for staff and the press corps [under both Republican and Democrat presidents] in order to plug in a private company run by her friends who had also contributed to her husband's campaign. When this blew up and became PR disaster, she hid documents, lied, and testified that she had "no recollection" of key matters. Sound familiar? Google "travelgate"
She was involved in the Clinton's illegally raising campaign cash from the Chinese, while opening trade with China and encouraging American companies to outsource to China. She was just amazingly unable to recall any of the details of those fundraisers, while a bunch of the Chinese nationals involved fled the US.
She is the one who in the 1990s hid documents the courts were seeking in the first lady's area of the White House until after the statute of limitations expired. When the documents then amazingly surfaced, she claimed to be unable to recall how they got there. Sound familiar?
She is a bad, crooked lawyer who has been lying and hiding documents and claiming memory failures for as long as I can recall. She and Bill started the current avalanche of lawlessness in which the federal government applies the laws differently to us than to the elites and if this continues much longer the public will lose any remaining faith in law --- and when THAT happens, LOOK OUT. Very bad things happen toordinary people when societies fall apart.
Hillary is not a fine wine. Time has NOT improved her. She now lies about lying about lies. It's just amazing to see her on TV telling a journalist that she always "tries" to tell the truth and doesnot believe she has EVER lied to the American people....
Some Trump supporters, like me, are behind him for a basic reason: She has been given government power and proved repeatedly that she cannot be trusted with it. Trump never has done this. He is the lesser of two evils in this awful election cycle.
Electing trump is like playing Russian Roulette with a revolver with one bullet loaded. Electing Hillary is like playing Russian Roulette with an AK-47 with a full magazine.