Bush Campaign Offices Burglarized 194
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."
Two equally plausible scenarios (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Two equally plausible scenarios (Score:4, Insightful)
Not everything is a conspiracy.
Re:Two equally plausible scenarios (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the article, police said theft is common in the area and stealing one or two things (the amt you can carry) is also common.
Re:They didn't like my version (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. Because the democratic modus operandi has always been a rock through a window at 4 in the morning.
In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Security? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Two equally plausible scenarios (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Security? (Score:5, Insightful)
You must be trolling.
The campaign managers are in charge of national security in much the same way that you're in charge of putting the dishes away at my house.
That's like walking into a drug company convention and exclaiming "We let these salespeople do surgery?"
Come the fuck on; he's running for President, not applying for a job as a system administrator, security consultant, or even an MCSE.
If you were talking foreign policy, domestic policy or something that a potential POTUS would be responsible for, fine. But the stuff was ripped off from a campaign office by a rock through the window.
I'm just sick to death of both sides screaming "This is what we want?" at every little fucking thing that comes up from break-ins to which campign offical is involved in what 527 group.
Find some fucking issues that matter, figure out where Kerry and Bush have different ideas on how to handle the issues, and make your choice on how well their views match with yours.
If "got campaign headquarters broken into" is top on the public list to vote Kerry instead of Bush, we are indeed in deep shit.
Karl Rove tapped his own office in Texas... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I really do doubt it's the Demms (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Ironically? (Score:2, Insightful)
How is a comparison to Watergate ironic?
Why this isn't like Watergate (Score:5, Insightful)
2) The Watergate burglars [watergate.info] were caught red-handed in the offices
Trying to equate this to Watergate is really weak.
Re:Two equally plausible scenarios (Score:2, Insightful)
"They were created in such a way as to appear genuine until closely scrutinized."
Closely scrutinized?! Do you know anything about the forged letter? It lacked the correct letterhead; in fact, it didn't have one at all! It was done on computer rather than a typewriter. A computer that supported variable character spacing and superscripting of numbers("1st", "2nd", etc.) which means it was probably done in a modern version of Microsoft Word. All of these things are clues even your average slashdotter would have picked up after a couple minutes of examination.
But let's suppose CBS's crack team of analysts didn't know that stuff. At least they checked the facts, right? ... Well not really. The "date" it was "written" was on a Saturday--when the offices are normally closed--by... this is the best part... an officer who had retired nearly a decade earlier than the date on the letter.
You people are ridiculous. Bush can't win for losing with you guys. His campaign office gets broken into and the first thought that comes to your minds is that of a twisted conspiracy with, at best, a very stupid and risky goal.
I've had it with the conspiracy theories, Nazi analogies, and hatred! BUSH IS NOT EVIL! He may not be the best man for the job--I'll agree with you on that! But he isn't Hitler--not even close. He's not trying to take over the world or whatever nefarious deeds you've conjured up in your imaginations. How could he? Even if he wins, he's still accountable to the American people--almost half of which ALREADY dislike him. And even if he went crazy in office, he'd only be there for, at most, 4 years.
For a website and readership who prides itself of its intelligence and logic, you guys really let me down sometimes.
-Grym
You aren't much of an expert either (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:You aren't much of an expert either (Score:1, Insightful)
Easy choice (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Oh, not so (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:To everyone saying this was Rove's plot (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Two equally plausible scenarios (Score:2, Insightful)
The first is that the there is a known fact that a second term President has nothing to lose and so is willing to push all his craziest stuff.
Which still has to, for the most part, be approved by YOUR representatives in Congress. Or do you actually believe Bush would stage some sort of military coup?
Regardless, my point was that many liberals, for whatever reason or another, have completely lost their logic due their hatred of Bush. Ted Kennedy less than a week ago likened a vote for Bush to a vote for a nuclear bomb in a major American city. Almost makes me feel bad for wanting to vote for Bush--assuming I'm not already scared into voting for Kerry. Honestly, how does one even respond to something like that?
I get this strange feeling that some people hate Bush so much that, despite all their Orwellian-talk, would whole-heartedly believe 2+2=5 provided it meant Bush wouldn't get elected. And it's crap like this conspiracy-theory Slashdot thread and the CBS documents that only serve edify my convictions.
In all seriousness, I pride myself at my objectivity--especially with my politics. I'm not even going to try to defend much of Bush's domestic policies. In fact, being a moderate myself, I'm inclined to agree with much of what you've said.
Where Bush is right, however, is on the most important issue in my mind. And this is how to deal with terrorism or, let's not kid ourselves, Islamic extremism. Yes, you read me correctly; Not Osama Bin Laden (one man) or Al Qeada (one of literally thousands of similar groups) but the militant segment of Arabic culture which stands orthogonal to the ideals of United States, which, unlike some people, I believe are still unequivocally good. The way I see it, we are living in a most interesting time. Like our fathers/grandfathers before WWII, we are faced with the one great evil of our time. Yet, I fear that today's America doesn't have the stomach to do what it takes to win.
Winning can't be done internally. Our infrastructure was never designed with this in mind. It was designed for efficiency, commerce, and freedom of movement--all of which are contrary to *real* security. Even attempting to do so would have diminishing returns and, ultimately, be self-defeating (e.g. Patriot Act) due to compromising the previously mentioned American ideals.
Similarly, winning won't be accomplished by playing footsie with Kofi Annan and his band of dictators. One needn't look farther than the current crisis in Sudan or the screw-up that was the "Oil for Food" program for proof of this. No, to actually win, we need to take a proactive stance. And if that means that Spain and the rest of Europe are too afraid to come along, then so be it.
You're into military tactics, so you should know we have to undermine them at every level: personnel, equipment, funding, and popular support. For all the criticisms leveled against the Bush administration, I see these things happening. Insurgents are pouring into Iraq to get killed wholesale. Libya saw what happened to Iraq and gave up its illegal weapons. Banks, in cooperation with the Bush administration, worldwide are making it much more difficult for these groups to obtain funds. And lastly, a stable, flourishing Iraq right smack in the middle of the Arabic world would make even the hardest of extremists wonder just what it is he's fighting against. Even if you don't agree with my assessment of the Bush administration's success in the war on terror, look no farther than the enemies. Hamas is handing out free copies of Fahrenheit 9/11!
-Grym
Bottom line on Bush/Kerry and Vietnam... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Ironically? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a sort of self-fulfilling socratic irony...
Re:Easy choice (Score:1, Insightful)
You people suffer from multiple personality disorder.
Re:Circular arguments go nowhere (Score:2, Insightful)
No, they are forged because they were typed up in Microsoft Word, and are impossible to replicate using any known 1970's typewriter.
"Jumped the queue"? That's a Michael Moore fabrication. There were plenty of flight slots open when Bush applied. There was no mythical unified queue.
He did leave early, but he didn't exactly skip the last two. He fufilled his point obligations (at least 50 points a year) for all five years, and he got an honorable discharge. The Air National Guard was flexible.
He said, 'Well, you're not going to let me fly the jet you're phasing out anyway. Can I leave?'
They said, 'Sure, we have too many pilots anyway. Off you go.'
(I'm paraphrasing.)
Here is a decent article on the subject. [hillnews.com]
They don't look typewritten at all. The only reason that there is a slight variation from a printed Word doc is because the thing was run through a copier a dozen times.
...well, it's been fun talking to you. One doesn't often come across someone so willfully blind.
Re:Easy choice (Score:5, Insightful)
To question Kerry's service records is a straw man - Bush has no service record - correction, so he's actually missing a few of them. If that's your reason for not voting Kerry, or voting for Bush, then you are disrespecting all those who served in any capacity. If you can't get a real reason to vote for a candidate, maybe you should either examine the issues more, or just not vote. Look for the real issues, and pick a candidate based on those.
p.s. This applies no matter who you end up choosing to vote for - just have a good reason, cause we're going to have to live with the decision, so I hope it's based on some good reason, not some crap.
Re:Enlistment contracts can be changed by military (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe that is disengenuous. The senior Guard people have characterized Bush's service as excellent for his early years but the bare minimum for his final year which includes Alabama. My understanding is that they didn't really care that his flight status had lapsed since his aircraft, F102?, was being phased out and he would have had to have been retrained for a new aircraft. With lots of Vietnam aircrews returning home with lots of experience in current aircraft retraining Bush would have made no sense.
He refuses to take any responsibility for leaving early without permission, and that is my gripe, especially with all the righteous right who blasted Clinton for legally dodging the draft.
The folks criticising Bush's service are the mirror image of those Clinton bashers you despise. According to the Guard Bush legally fulfilled his service, he accumulated the required number of points. He was honorably discharged. If you would like to question the accuracy of this discharge it would seem to be equivalent to those questioning the accuracy of Kerry's after action reports and citations. You can't have it both ways.
Re:Easy choice (Score:4, Insightful)