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."
He refers to Hillary as "unbridled ambition, greedy, not transformational, with a husband still dicking bimbos at home." That didn't bore me at all!
...except that Trump will win because it will become known that
Hillary is suffering from a serious, untreatable neurological condition
(some suggest Parkinson's) and will be unable to perform the duties
the Office of President of The United States requires. The large
meds she's on to appear healthy during her campaign are going
to cause her to crash and burn really bad (I don't wish her harm).
She can't continue at the level of meds she's on for any period of
time - Sunday was just the tip of the ice berg of what's ahead...
CAP == 'faults'
They did produce evidence. The UN inspectors had free run of the country for several months prior to the war. In their own words, the US evidence was "shit". Of course they found no evidence of an ongoing weapons program, because there was none.
In any case, the US never has produced any real evidence, before or after for their WMD claims.
They had cryptic radio intercepts.
They had satellite pictures of trucks leaving buildings.
They had unknown chemical processing trucks (turned out to be hydrogen production. The design was known, but not by Powell.).
They had aluminum tubes.
For hard evidence, that's all they had.
Play Command HQ online
You asked "why?"
why did UK, run by a Left wing government run by Tony Blair, back that?
1. Because warhawks are warhawks, and allies are allies, regardless of party affiliation. After 9/11, Europe sympathized with the US.
everybody's intelligence agencies seemed to suggest that Saddam had chemical and/or biological weapons
2. Actually, the intelligence agencies didn't suggest this. The politicians claimed that the intelligence agencies said this, but they really didn't. The agencies don't really speak publicly, they speak through the elected officials that they report to. We now know that what they told the president and prime minister isn't the same as what the president and prime minister said publicly.
For example: We now know that for example, at the time that George W. Bush gave a speech about the supposed "yellow cake uranium," that he knew it was falsified evidence but proceeded with the speech anyway. The UK did the same thing, leading up to the invasion, asking BBC reporters to basically make-up phony facts.
If you look back at the evidence, it was clear that the evidence was being used to justify an already decided-upon conclusion. For example: The UK and US cited a shipment of aluminum tubes as evidence that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons. It turns out that the tubes were used for the much more mundane purpose of rockets. If you saw an aluminum tube that could be used for rockets or nuclear weapons, and you knew the country was developing rockets, why would you assert that these tubes are evidence of nuclear weapons? Certainly, it is possible. But they didn't present it as "well, it was probably used for rockets, but maybe it is for nukes (shrug)." It was presented as "OMG This is proof that they are developing nukes!" A lie of omission is still a lie.
You asked "Why?" It is important to understand why. It is because well-intentioned people can sometimes lie to support what they believe is right. The populus and the media in particular, must be vigilant against such things. The New York times, has since, apologized for being the white house's mouthpiece.
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.
Funny, I didn't see him call her a liar. Here's the most critical remarks I found about her from the article:
Mr. Powell lamented that while he respected Mrs. Clinton, he would “rather not have to vote for her,” describing the Democratic presidential nominee as having “a long track record, unbridled ambition, greedy, not transformational.”
“H.R.C. could have killed this two years ago by merely telling everyone honestly what she had done and not tie me into it,” Mr. Powell wrote late last month, referring to Mrs. Clinton by her initials. “I told her staff three times not to try that gambit. I had to throw a mini-tantrum at a Hamptons party to get their attention. She keeps tripping into these ‘character’ minefields.”
In December 2015, he told Condoleezza Rice, his successor at the State Department, that the Republican political attacks on Benghazi were “a stupid witch hunt” and wrote that “basic fault falls on a courageous ambassador who thought Libyans now love me and I am O.K. in this very vulnerable place.” He added that “blame also rests on his leaders and supporters back here,” including Mrs. Clinton.
A few months later, in a discussion about Mrs. Clinton’s email scandal, Mr. Powell lamented that “everything H.R.C. touches she kind of screws up with hubris.”
Oh, and of course his most critical remarks about Trump:
Mr. Powell wrote last month that Mr. Trump is “his own best enemy” and added: “I will speak out when I feel it appropriate and not after every idiot thing he says.”
“No need to debate it with you now, but Trump is a national disgrace and an international pariah,” Mr. Powell wrote in June, noting the criticism of Mr. Trump by several prominent conservatives. “He is in the process of destroying himself, no need for Dems to attack him.”
“Yup, the whole birther movement was racist,” Mr. Powell wrote. “That’s what the 99% believe. When Trump couldn’t keep that up he said he also wanted to see if the certificate noted that he was a Muslim. As I have said before, ‘What if he was?’ Muslims are born as Americans everyday.”
Mr. Powell dismissed as completely ineffective Mr. Trump’s recent attempts to reach out to black voters, saying that the Republican nominee “takes us for idiots.”
“He can never overcome what he tried to do to Obama with his search for the birth certificate hoping to force Obama out of the presidency,” Mr. Powell wrote, saying to his aide, “You don’t fall for his false sincerity, I hope.”
“He appeals to the worst angels of the G.O.P. nature and poor white folks,”
So... are you sure you want the summary to go into his opinions on the candidates?
I stole this Sig
Many did.
One from Australia quit his intelligence job (preparing reports on Iraq) and ran for the Senate with the argument that Iraq did not have WMDs and the war was based on a lie. He was not just some Snowden but had served for twenty years reached the rank of lieutenant colonel and had also worked for Raytheon.
He was in the Australian Senate for a few years and is in now Member of the Australian Parliament for Denison and his name is Andrew Wilkie.
I disagree. In most of the previous recent elections, there was an okay candidate and a bad candidate. This time, there are two very bad candidates. Trump is probably slightly less bad in practice, because he has fewer Washington connections and most of Congress hates him, so he'll have worse policies but less chance of getting them through. Clinton has marginally less bad policies, but is sufficiently familiar with the Washington machine that she'll probably pass a lot of them.
W wouldn't have been so bad if he hadn't been a Bush. If he'd not had the family connections with experience to help get things done, he'd probably have been an ineffectual and unmemorable president.
Given that it's going to be bad whoever wins, you may as well vote for someone you actually want to win, in the hope that next time they'll seem electable enough that people will vote for them thinking that they might actually stand a chance.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News