Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

White House Official Tracked Down and Fired Over Insulting Tweets

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the calls-em-like-he-sees-em dept.

Government 208

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "BBC reports that Jofi Joseph, a senior National Security Council staffer who was a key member of the White House team negotiating on Iran's nuclear weapons program, has been fired ... after a months-long probe into a barrage of tweets that included caustic criticisms of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and top NSC officials, especially Ben Rhodes – whom he accused of dodging questions about Benghazi. Joseph, who posted under the now defunct Twitter name @NatSecWonk, gave a lacerating commentary on anything from policy to personal appearance. 'Was Huma Abedin wearing beer goggles the night she met Anthony Weiner,' he tweeted, referring to the scandal-hit former New York mayoral candidate and his wife, a former aide of Hillary Clinton. He tweeted that Mrs Clinton 'had few policy goals and no wins' in the Middle East. He said Chelsea Clinton was 'assuming all of her parents' vices,' and targeted figures such as Republican commentator Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney's wife Ann for their looks and weight. Many in the foreign policy community reacted with shock to the revelation that Joseph was the mystery tweeter because Joseph was well known among policy wonks and his wife, Carolyn Leddy, is a well-respected professional staffer on the Republican side of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 'What started out as an intended parody account of DC culture developed over time into a series of inappropriate and mean-spirited comments,' said Joseph in an apology. 'I bear complete responsibility for this affair and I sincerely apologize to everyone I insulted.'"

cancel ×

208 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

For an archive of his account (5, Informative)

barlevg (2111272) | about a year ago | (#45211607)

Wayback Machine evidently doesn't bother with Twitter, but the page can still (for now) be found on the Google Cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://twitter.com/NatSecWonk [googleusercontent.com]

Re:For an archive of his account (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45211679)

Finally the NSA archive of "everything" has paid off ... and it only took them a few months to find out who it was. No wonder we're harvesting anything and everything our citizens do.

Re:For an archive of his account (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45211695)

This proves that people who troll online are upstanding, well-adjusted individuals who release their negative energy in a healthy and creative manner, rather than beating their families or abusing their pets as many lesser-adjusted individuals do.

So the next time you see an online troll, shake his hand and pat him on the back - he is doing the right thing and fighting the good fight, saying the things you want to say so that you don't have to.

Nigger.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:For an archive of his account (-1, Offtopic)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#45211759)

So the next time you see an online troll, shake his hand and pat him on the back - he is doing the right thing and fighting the good fight, saying the things you want to say so that you don't have to.

Play the "Drinking Game" with Jewish given and surnames on the "politico" article, and then check into rehab.
--
"Have you got a 27B / 6 ?"

Re:For an archive of his account (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about a year ago | (#45211791)

So you're saying your not a troll then, even though you act like one? I'm confused.

Re:For an archive of his account (5, Funny)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about a year ago | (#45211841)

I think he's saying that he's not the troll Slashdot needs; he's the troll Slashdot DESERVES.

Re:For an archive of his account (4, Funny)

paiute (550198) | about a year ago | (#45212265)

I think he's saying that you go to Twitter with the troll you have, not the troll you might want or wish to have at a later time.

Frosty Tweet (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45211613)

Kerpin' frosty, fokls!@

Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (4, Insightful)

nefus (952656) | about a year ago | (#45211627)

Will all the secret public email accounts being used to pass information to the press and between departments... they fire a tweeter?

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (4, Insightful)

barlevg (2111272) | about a year ago | (#45211693)

To be fair, any corporation would have done the same thing. If Pepsi (say) discovered a Twitter account that repeatedly says that Pepsi tastes horrible, and it turned out that the owner of the account was one of their employees, it wouldn't matter if that employee never used his or her real name--he or she would be canned faster than, well...

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (1, Informative)

duke_cheetah2003 (862933) | about a year ago | (#45211763)

Are you sure about that? What grounds would you fire such a person under? Is it against the law to criticize your employer? You just can't fire people for no reason (well, you're not supposed to.) I mean if an employee is doing their job, performing well, and secretly bashing you on twitter, is that really a legal ground for termination?

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (4, Insightful)

Austrian Anarchy (3010653) | about a year ago | (#45211811)

Are you sure about that? What grounds would you fire such a person under? Is it against the law to criticize your employer? You just can't fire people for no reason (well, you're not supposed to.) I mean if an employee is doing their job, performing well, and secretly bashing you on twitter, is that really a legal ground for termination?

It does not have to be against the law to criticize your employer for your employer to fire you over it. Your employer can fire you for just about any reason they like. Government as employer? Might take longer, but amass enough paper against you and eventually you go away. However, if your employer is the government you could easily be subject to jail and fines if you say the wrong things in the course of your criticism (not saying that applies in this case).

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (4, Interesting)

duke_cheetah2003 (862933) | about a year ago | (#45211871)

It does not have to be against the law to criticize your employer for your employer to fire you over it. Your employer can fire you for just about any reason they like. Government as employer? Might take longer, but amass enough paper against you and eventually you go away. However, if your employer is the government you could easily be subject to jail and fines if you say the wrong things in the course of your criticism (not saying that applies in this case).

In this particular case of Joseph, yes, his position required a respectable public image. But I'm talking more about grunts, people not in the public eye. Taking the Pepsi example, I mean, do you really think that'd stand up in a court if the fired employee made a huge stink over it? There are laws against discrimination in hiring/firing practices. Those are all based on tangible qualities, such as age, race, gender, sexual orientation.. but then we get to.. religion. That's protected too. And that's an opinion, a preference. So seems to be you'd have a pretty nice wrestle in a court if you fought wrongful termination for personal opinions expressed in your offtime, against your employer (or anything else for that matter.)

Enh, just more reason to cover your tracks as BEST you can when you post on the internet and worry someone might object to it.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (4, Interesting)

Austrian Anarchy (3010653) | about a year ago | (#45212083)

It does not have to be against the law to criticize your employer for your employer to fire you over it. Your employer can fire you for just about any reason they like. Government as employer? Might take longer, but amass enough paper against you and eventually you go away. However, if your employer is the government you could easily be subject to jail and fines if you say the wrong things in the course of your criticism (not saying that applies in this case).

In this particular case of Joseph, yes, his position required a respectable public image. But I'm talking more about grunts, people not in the public eye. Taking the Pepsi example, I mean, do you really think that'd stand up in a court if the fired employee made a huge stink over it? There are laws against discrimination in hiring/firing practices. Those are all based on tangible qualities, such as age, race, gender, sexual orientation.. but then we get to.. religion. That's protected too. And that's an opinion, a preference. So seems to be you'd have a pretty nice wrestle in a court if you fought wrongful termination for personal opinions expressed in your offtime, against your employer (or anything else for that matter.)

Enh, just more reason to cover your tracks as BEST you can when you post on the internet and worry someone might object to it.

If you are talking about one of those non at-will States, or some foreign country, then the job for life no matter what comes into play. However, the issue is dissing your employer, which is the least "protected" version of speech out there. Then again, I am not sure who you are arguing against, since I don't think the Pepsi employee has, or should have, any chance of overturning a firing for that. Neither should the fed in question either.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (3, Interesting)

Threni (635302) | about a year ago | (#45211819)

> What grounds would you fire such a person under?

Doesn't every single employment contract in the world contain words to the effect that you'll be fired if you give the employer a bad name?

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45212095)

On the grounds of employment at will.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#45212337)

> What grounds would you fire such a person under?

Doesn't every single employment contract in the world contain words to the effect that you'll be fired if you give the employer a bad name?

Not in At-Will states like mine* - there's no need to get that specific.

* Either party can terminate employment at any time, for (almost) any reason, and nobody ever has to explain why, outside an illegal discrimination charge.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45212533)

That is probably illegal in many countries.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (4, Interesting)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#45211839)

Here's a good rule of thumb: If you'd get fired for yelling it in the office, you'll get fired for doing it online in the office. If you'd get fired for yelling it on the street, you'll get fired for doing it online period.

Most companies would fire someone for going around telling people in the general public that their company sucks. If nothing else, it's a big ol' conflict of interests.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (3, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | about a year ago | (#45211997)

The difference is that a normal employer would have no reasonable way of discovering the employee's identity. But with the NSA, Obama can find anyone in his staff who complains, and deal with them harshly, privacy be damned.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (4, Informative)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#45212057)

Anonymity is just security through obscurity... it's nice when it works, but you really shouldn't count on it to do stupid shit.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45212183)

He had top level security clearance- even his pets have to pass the screening process.

Frankly, based on his tweets, he sounded as if he was disillusioned with the administration and politics. With such attitude likelihood of him leaking sensitive information was high - he had to go.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (0)

sI4shd0rk (3402769) | about a year ago | (#45212421)

With such attitude likelihood of him leaking sensitive information was high - he had to go.

Yeah, that would be horrible; we might find out what the criminals who claim to represent us are really up to.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45212541)

And firing them would stop them from leaking? I would think it'd be much more likely they would leak after being fired.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (4, Interesting)

bitt3n (941736) | about a year ago | (#45212405)

The other difference is that the ability to criticize one's government is different in kind from the ability to criticize a soft drink. It might not be unreasonable for Pepsi to attempt to keep its employees from undermining the company's success on their own time, given that someone who hates Pepsi can choose to work at another company. Contrarily, given that government is a monopoly, expecting an employee to give up his right to criticize it seems far more dubious, since, aside from voting (or emigrating), such criticism is his only means to effect changes in it. If a government employee were to limit himself strictly to criticizing government policy, and did so from an anonymous account, so not to lend to his comments the authority of his office, it seems questionable to punish him for it.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45212407)

The other difference is supposedly the Constitution applies to the Government and not private corporations.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45212523)

The NSA should be wise enough not to snoop on WH.

I wonder if it would have been more effective to silence the tweeter if he publicly asked some other country's espionage service to do the snooping.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (1)

Kleen13 (1006327) | about a year ago | (#45212077)

And if they had to pay severance for doing so, it would likely be worth it to them.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (4, Insightful)

Tuidjy (321055) | about a year ago | (#45211851)

Who needs grounds? Employment at will - you can fire anyone as long as you are not firing him for belonging to a protected category, like being over a certain age. And of course, you CAN fire someone for anything, just do not tell anyone why.

As for precedent, beer companies have fired their drivers for always drinking a competitor's brand, and that's a lot less damning in my book. And yeah, it was perfectly legal.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (2)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about a year ago | (#45212155)

Sure - but private companies cannot scour through the personal electronic information of the world to try and identify which employee is bad mouthing them like the NSA/gov can. Well, unless your company is Booz Allen Hamilton and ilk. Perhaps that will be a new service the NSA can sell to provate companies down the road... monitor every aspect of your employees lives.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (1, Informative)

ageoffri (723674) | about a year ago | (#45211933)

There are a lot of States are At-Will. In this case you can quit for any reason and the company can fire you for any reason*. So yes the company can and should fire you for tweeting nasty things about the company.

The only real issue here is that Obama promised the most transparent administration in history. Instead we have leak after leak showing that it is the most opaque administration. Not to mention corrupt and surprisingly the one area the Administrator isn't incompetent in, is the prosecution of killing terrorist.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (4, Informative)

Grishnakh (216268) | about a year ago | (#45211979)

If an employer fired an employee for something like this, I think the employee would have major grounds to sue, not for wrongful termination, but for spying and violation of privacy. Employers don't go to the kind of trouble the Obama Administration went to to discover this guy's identity. From the article: "After a probe that included an investigation into Joseph’s travel and shopping patterns – parsed from over 2,000 tweets..." So they spied on the guy's shopping habits? How'd they do that exactly? If an employer somehow got your bank or Visa/Mastercard to give them access to your shopping information, and also somehow tracked your travel patterns, there'd be hell to pay. But Obama does it and it's just fine apparently. It's highly disturbing that this guy was found out at all; obviously he wasn't intending to divulge his identity, so there had to be some kind of illegal or unethical breach of privacy protections in order to discover his identity.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (5, Informative)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about a year ago | (#45212259)

Just using the tools put in place. Evil, but hardly as evil as using the surveillance state to squash political dissent [startpage.com] which received much less mass media attention that this internal witch hunt. Key OWS supporters lost their jobs, were put on no fly and do not employ lists but since they did not have big Washington insider status, they get no press.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (2)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about a year ago | (#45212375)

Your employer has every right to go through their equipment if they suspect you of serious misconduct. And twitter feed are public information so there is zero protection there.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#45212111)

You just can't fire people for no reason

Unless you're in an at-will state. You know, most of them.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (2)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#45212165)

Is it against the law to criticize your employer?

Actually it is, in most civilized countries. The law states that an employee must respect the employer, his property and his reputation. Of course I don't think such a law applies to telling the actual truth though. Certainly it's one for the lawyers and the courts.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#45212393)

Is it against the law to criticize your employer?

Actually it is, in most civilized countries. The law states that an employee must respect the employer, his property and his reputation

Criticism and respect are not diametrically opposed.

Hell, some of the criticisms I have for companies are because I respect them, and want them to do better.

But no, at least in the US there is no law that says people cannot criticize their employers.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (2)

BreakBad (2955249) | about a year ago | (#45212477)

To STFU or not to STFU..that is the question. Its simply a risk/reward analysis to be made by the employee. The reward being able to say "My company makes and eats dog poo" on twitter and keep your job. The risk not getting a paycheck for awhile and possibly having to be in close proximity with lawyers for length amounts of time, side effects include delusions and skin rashes.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (1)

jratcliffe (208809) | about a year ago | (#45212219)

Are you sure about that? What grounds would you fire such a person under? Is it against the law to criticize your employer? You just can't fire people for no reason (well, you're not supposed to.) I mean if an employee is doing their job, performing well, and secretly bashing you on twitter, is that really a legal ground for termination?

Definitely. Most employment in the US (outside of union contracts) is at will - your employer can fire you for any reason they want, EXCEPT for some specific exclusions (race/ethnicity, sex, age, family status/pregnancy, and (in some states) political opinions or sexual orientation).

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about a year ago | (#45212339)

Bringing your employer into disrepute is gross misconduct.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (3, Informative)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about a year ago | (#45212479)

Are you sure about that? What grounds would you fire such a person under? Is it against the law to criticize your employer? You just can't fire people for no reason (well, you're not supposed to.) I mean if an employee is doing their job, performing well, and secretly bashing you on twitter, is that really a legal ground for termination?

Most private-sector jobs in the U.S. are "employment at will". That means employees can be fired for any reason or no reason, as long as it's not for a reason specifically prohibited by federal law (race, gender, etc.) I don't think this is good policy, but it is how things currently work in most places (pretty much all non-union shops). And one reason that it hasn't changed is that most Americans don't realize how bad it actually is: that as workers they essentially have no rights.

Federal civil service jobs are different. A rank-and-file Federal employee can pretty much say anything he/she wants about the government, as long as it's not on the clock. But the most high-ranking staff members at government agencies don't have civil service protections; they are political appointees and are expected to support the administration's goals and objectives. A random clerk processing Social Security claims can tweet all he/she wants about politics, but if the Secretary of State shoots his/her mouth off against the President's wishes, they will soon be "asked to resign".

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45212565)

In most US states, it's legal to fire someone for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all; provided you don't do it based on some prohibited discrimination.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (2)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#45211877)

Not sure many corporations would have bothered to put the effort in, even so, most corporations have not taken the mantle unto themselves to be the model for freedom and justice in the world (I know; stop laughing, I am trying to make a point here) .

What others would do is immaterial, what they should have done is realized that part of their job is to set an example and that example includes respecting the right of people to freely assemble (even in new technological forms) and speak

Given that whoever it was only spoke and gave away nothing that would otherwise constitute a crime, they should have not even attempted to discover who he was.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (0)

mjr167 (2477430) | about a year ago | (#45211935)

Actually its not that simple... [forbes.com]

It's not as easy as 'he tweeted something bad about the company... fire him.' We have laws about protected speech. It looks like as long as all your coworkers on on board, you can't be fired for bitching.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (1)

LoyalOpposition (168041) | about a year ago | (#45211937)

To be fair, any corporation would have done the same thing. If Pepsi (say) discovered a Twitter account that repeatedly says that Pepsi tastes horrible, and it turned out that the owner of the account was one of their employees, it wouldn't matter if that employee never used his or her real name--he or she would be canned faster than, well...

I think one difference might be that Pepsi can't use all the power of government to reveal who the tweeter was.

~Loyal

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (1)

Diss Champ (934796) | about a year ago | (#45212135)

To be fair, any corporation would have done the same thing. If Pepsi (say) discovered a Twitter account that repeatedly says that Pepsi tastes horrible, and it turned out that the owner of the account was one of their employees, it wouldn't matter if that employee never used his or her real name--he or she would be canned faster than, well...

I think one difference might be that Pepsi can't use all the power of government to reveal who the tweeter was.

~Loyal

They can, however, use all the powers of Pepsi to reveal who the tweeter was.

Actually, that may mean they can use all the powers of government.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (1)

khr (708262) | about a year ago | (#45212031)

he or she would be canned

What would they label the can?

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (2)

barlevg (2111272) | about a year ago | (#45212227)

"New Coke."

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (4, Insightful)

Cajun Hell (725246) | about a year ago | (#45212289)

The story here isn't that he was fired. It's that the Whitehouse investigated him. He didn't accidentally leak his identity to some private sector reporter who put it in their article, and then the president saw it in a newspaper. They spent time and money on trying to figure out the identity of a totally irrelevant and unimportant Twitter user over a bunch of totally irrelevant and unimportant tweets. Like, this was important to them.

At least Pepsi would be able to somewhat justify such an expenditure, since their marketing really is so important, and all Pepsi stockholders would agree that marketing is a good use of funds. But what say America's "stockholders," about our new "marketing counter-intelligence" program?

They guy wasn't even saying stuff analogous to "USA sucks for tourists. Foreign tourists should take vacations somewhere else and spend their money there instead of in USA." or "You should buy used F-16s from Israel instead of from USA." He was just talking shit about shit. There's no legitimate reason for the government to have been working on this.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45212501)

If he picked a different twitter name then it'll be plausible it was really for something else and the NSA tipped the Whitehouse off on what to investigate.

As it is it might not be so surprising that a "NatSecWonk" posting about certain things might draw more unwanted attention to himself.

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (4, Interesting)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#45211835)

Apparently there are repercussions for criticizing the "most transparent administration ever" cover ups.

For months, White House and State department officials searched for @NatSecWonk, a hunt that intensified after he repeatedly expressed doubts about the official administration accounts about the Sept. 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi.

So, why did they force survivors to sign secrecy agreements?

BenghaziGate: At Least 5 CIA Employees Forced to Sign Nondisclosure Agreements [breitbart.com]

Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45211927)

"most transparent administration ever"

Just got to love that whole 'transparency' thing.

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/416090/

"FARGO – The Obama administration asked North Dakota’s largest health insurer not to publicize how many people have signed up for health insurance through a new online exchange, a company official says."

Of course this is all Boooshes fault, we all know this.

And the media just keeps blowing Obama whenever he asks. No one throws shoes at him or even asks him any questions.

And most of the stupid drones on this super-smart-geek website support this tyranny.

Fucking fools.

hello (-1, Offtopic)

Marry Thomas (3406973) | about a year ago | (#45211637)

just as Rosa implied I am dazzled that a person able to earn $8943 in one month on the computer. browse this site........ www.blue48

It must be said (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#45211653)

Was Carolyn Leddy wearing beer goggles the night she met Jofi Joseph?

Re:It must be said (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a year ago | (#45211869)

They both must have been, and in a low lit room at that.

That, and I wonder which one has the larger penis.

Re:It must be said (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45212303)

Do your trolling anonymously, folks! Have we learned nothing from all this?

hello (-1, Offtopic)

Marry Thomas (3406973) | about a year ago | (#45211673)

just as Rosa implied I am dazzled that a person able to earn $8943 in one month on the computer. browse this siteBlue48.m -->

Flash forward a few years (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45211715)

Joining us on FoxNews Sunday to discuss President Clinton's State of the Union Address is former National Security Council member Jofi Joseph. Mr. Joseph, glad to have you with us.

Re:Flash forward a few years (1)

TWX (665546) | about a year ago | (#45211757)

More likely that he'll become an independent and speak at a GOP nominating convention...

Penny Arcade's thoughts on Internet anonymity [penny-arcade.com] come to mind...

Re:Flash forward a few years (1, Insightful)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a year ago | (#45211895)

Read his posts. He's another left-wing obama bot who's been partially disillusioned, but still believes the same lies. He'll be on MSNBC in two years.

THIS IS WHY THE NSA BUILT THEIR CRAP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45211719)

In a nutshell (or was the IRS targetting opponents of the current regime some illusion too? No, it wasn't): To "get to" anyone that rightly puts them down for doing a SHIT JOB, period (and there's no question of them doing such a piss poor job it's not funny - look at the economy, the #1 issue, for example. That and wars based on bullshit does the job for anyone with a pair of eyes and a brain to realize scumbags run the show out of washington).

Insults? (2, Funny)

mrspoonsi (2955715) | about a year ago | (#45211727)

Perhaps much of what he said is true...the truth should not be insulting. In these politically correct times, he should have changed:

Mrs Clinton 'had few policy goals and no wins' in the Middle East.

to:

Mrs Clinton was policy goal challenged.

Re:Insults? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45211781)

In these politically correct times

...and I stopped reading.

Re:Insults? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45211881)

In these politically correct times

...and I

...and I stopped reading.

Re:Insults? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45211807)

Perhaps much of what he said is true...the truth should not be insulting. In these politically correct times, he should have changed:
  Mrs Clinton 'had few policy goals and no wins' in the Middle East.
to:
Mrs Clinton was policy goal challenged.

Maybe it was more the and targeted figures such as Republican commentator Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney's wife Ann for their looks and weight type of references that was more on the insulting types than tweeting about a political opinion?

Either way, I'm tired of these political people act like they don't know better and just provide empty apologizes when they get caught. They are smart enough to know what is insulting and what is not...

Re:Insults? (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about a year ago | (#45211955)

And his personal attacks on people not in politics like Chelsea Clinton, Liz Cheney, and Ann Romney could be spun how? Hey I'm all for criticizing politicians for their politics. Leave their families and personal attacks out of it.

Re:Insults? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45212097)

Chelsea clinton for now not involved very publicly, yes. The other two? When they're flapping their jaws regarding their husbands, they're involved. But the conmentary should have been the commentary (or stupid, in the case of Romney) they emitted.

Re:Insults? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about a year ago | (#45212159)

Liz Cheney and Ann Romney have supported their husbands but they themselves are not in politics. But your point is the same as mine. I should be able to disagree with any of them on their views and I support anyone's right to tweet their disagreement. Personal attacks on their appearance is crossing a line.

Re:Insults? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#45212473)

Perhaps much of what he said is true...the truth should not be insulting.

You're right, it shouldn't be.

However, remember the words of the great Robert Heinlein: "Being right too soon is socially unacceptable."

Unfortunately for this gentleman, the social group which found him unacceptable just so happens to be the biggest, most paranoid government in the history of mankind.

No worries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45211797)

After a suitable vacation this bastion of democratic behavior will have a new, better job with a leftist think tank or university.

Leftists have no honor.

Re:No worries (2)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year ago | (#45212119)

Re:No worries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45212447)

What's Ollie North doing these days, again?

I can't believe ... (5, Insightful)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | about a year ago | (#45211837)

I can't believe that any prominent person tweets at all. The medium encourages inflammatory behavior and doesn't let there be any context. Recipe for disaster.

Re:I can't believe ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45211909)

I can't believe that any prominent person tweets at all.

And yet it seems like those are the only people that do.

Re:I can't believe ... (4, Insightful)

avandesande (143899) | about a year ago | (#45212413)

I am not able to attribute the quote but it goes something like this- "you see a person's true face when they are wearing a mask..."

Inside the Bubble (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year ago | (#45211855)

This guy was so very impressed with himself and his insider status that he forgot to act like a professional. He got his free speech and the consequences of that speech. I'm sure his wife appreciates the celebrity he has brought them.

Re:Inside the Bubble (3, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | about a year ago | (#45212039)

Yes, and thanks to ubiquitous NSA spying, they were able to catch this dastardly man and put a stop to his treacherous activities. Aren't you glad Obama has the NSA to find out anyone who criticizes him?

Re:Inside the Bubble (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#45212205)

But remember, it's only "metadata"!

Just curious: how? (2)

stevegee58 (1179505) | about a year ago | (#45211941)

As a TrueNerd© I'd like to know precisely how this person was caught. Was he tweeting from work? If not, it makes me wonder...

Re:Just curious: how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45212059)

Agreed! The guy sounds like an asshole, but did he commit a crime? Did he just get randomly found out? Or was there some sort of investigation?

Re:Just curious: how? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#45212217)

randomly found out

Seriously, in a post Snowden whistelblower world, you think he was 'randomly' found out?

We Need More, Not Less, Demeaning Of Our Overlords (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45211991)

The coastal elite seem to feel that they are superior to the mere citizens they rule. Anything that takes them down a peg or two is a good thing.

Speaking of dodging questions. . . (4, Interesting)

smooth wombat (796938) | about a year ago | (#45211995)

especially Ben Rhodes â" whom he accused of dodging questions about Benghazi.

I find it amusing people focusing on an event which transpired over a few hours when absolutely no investigation or questions were raised about the two DAY refusal by the Bush administration to send in more troops to block the escape of Bin Laden.

For those that don't know, officers on the ground, both U.S. and British, made repeated requests over a two day period to have more troops dropped in to block escape routes for Bin Laden when they had him pinned down in Tora Bora. They could hear him over the radio telling his people the end looked near and he had failed them. According to one British source, they estimated the troops were within 2 kilometers of Bin Laden [bbc.co.uk] .

However, for those two days the Bush administration refused all requests for more troops, claiming the Afghan forces could be used instead of allied troops (which was a complete failure). As a result, Bin Laden ran free for another decade until the Obama administration was able to track him down.

Funny how not one person ever jumped up and said, "We need to investigate why Bin Laden, the man who planned the worst terrorist attack on American soil, was allowed to escape!", yet people are hellbent on talking about mistakes made over a few hours which somehow ranks higher in importance.

Re:Speaking of dodging questions. . . (3, Insightful)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about a year ago | (#45212103)

How can you have a "war on terror" if you quickly take out the high profile leader of your worst enemy? That was one long decade of profits [globalissues.org] that they bought themselves...

Re:Speaking of dodging questions. . . (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45212169)

Funny how not one person ever jumped up and said, "We need to investigate why Bin Laden, the man who planned the worst terrorist attack on American soil, was allowed to escape!", yet people are hellbent on talking about mistakes made over a few hours which somehow ranks higher in importance.

Funny how people were absolutely goddamned raging over the event when it happened. But of course, we have rose-colored Affordable Obama Glasses. The fact that Republicans and their party sycophants today are acting like the Democrats and their party sycophants of yesteryear isn't acceptable to the current regime's propaganda machine, is it?

Re:Speaking of dodging questions. . . (4, Informative)

smooth wombat (796938) | about a year ago | (#45212283)

The only Congressional report on the events is this one [senate.gov] which occurred in 2009, 8 years after the event.

Unlike Benghazi, there was no drumbeat, from any source, on how Bin Laden was allowed to escape, no daily update from Fox on how the most wanted criminal in modern times was allowed to escape, no daily demands for Congressional hearings on the matter. None.

There are no rose colored glasses on this event. There were no investigations, no cries of indignation or threats of impeachment. Instead, there was silence and when pressed, Bush refused to answer any questions. The same way he did when pressed to turn over documents on the 9/11 attack.

You do know Bush turned over 1, ONE, document for the entire 9/11 Commission report. Both he and Cheney refused to appear before any Congressional hearing or provide information to any Congressional member without a lawyer being present and with no documentation of what took place.

Imagine if this administration had done the same thing over Benghazi. The South most certainly would have risen, and the lynchings would have been fierce.

Obama Administration Shill Alert (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45212195)

Any time Benghazi comes up, it's imperative for shills to employee "but-but-but-Bush!"

Re:Speaking of dodging questions. . . (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45212207)

Well then, I guess that makes the Benghazi debacle okay.

Re:Speaking of dodging questions. . . (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45212249)

So you're saying the Magic Liberals in charge need not be held accountable or even answer questions because...BUSH!! It's the new moral wand of magicness. BUSH on you! be gone.

malarchy...thats nothin. (1)

nimbius (983462) | about a year ago | (#45212021)

Back in my day we'd track down and SHOOT the bastard ourselves.

-D Cheney

Re:malarchy...thats nothin. (5, Funny)

idontgno (624372) | about a year ago | (#45212141)

Back in my day we'd track down, invite them to a duck-hunting outing, and SHOOT the bastard ourselves.

FTFY.

Re:malarchy...thats nothin. (1)

freeze128 (544774) | about a year ago | (#45212323)

... in the FACE!

Chips (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45212049)

Chips don't just fall where they may anymore. If there's a chip spinning on the ground in an uncertain way, you can bet someone with an agenda set it in motion.

The problem with wanting to rule the world is that everybody wants to rule the world.. and that is just not logistically possible.

Parody is all fun and games... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45212055)

Until you meet someone with no sense of humor.

He got fired, not imprisoned (4, Insightful)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year ago | (#45212133)

Dunno about you, but if I were to make comments like that where I work, I expect the boss to say something like 'I see you're really unhappy here, so why don't you take this box and clean out your desk'. Why is this a big deal? It's not like he got jail time out of it.

Everyone loses when we vote Repiblicrat (5, Insightful)

Cajun Hell (725246) | about a year ago | (#45212171)

While firing the unprofessional jerk after he was outed is perfectly defensible (I have no problem with it at all), the government did get caught working against America's interests again:

The website Politico said White House officials had worked over months to discover the identity of Mr Joseph - a key member of the team negotiating over Iran's nuclear programme.

It said his travel and shopping habits had been profiled by parsing over 2,000 tweets.

Why THE FUCK was the government spending time investigating this? And why the fuck is this not a big secret?

The BushBama whitehouse is seriously confused about what the country needs from its government, and over the last 12 years they have just gotten repeatedly more brazen and open about it. Is it simply that really, nobody cares?

I pay taxes in order for you to funnel them to obscurely-overbilling contractors for substandard work, so that they can then divert a portion of their obscene profits to the re-election campaigns of the people in congress and administration, who make the funneling happen. That is why we have government: to give crooks a non-violent outlet for their greed and need to victimize society. A few billion dollars here, a few billion dollars there .. we have a strong economy and can sustain that.

But I don't pay taxes for you people to spend it tracking tweets. That's not what government is for! All these crooks need to get out of the surveillance game and back into mainstream profitable corruption. And we voters should insist upon it. Please, everyone: stop voting Republicrat.

Re:Everyone loses when we vote Repiblicrat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45212363)

Lol. You got in line and voted for Obama like everyone else here.

Re:Everyone loses when we vote Repiblicrat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45212395)

...All these crooks need to get out of the surveillance game and back into mainstream profitable corruption...

The devil we know :) Now how is it that this statement sounds so favorable?

But ultimately survillance is just a form of observation, and with increased senses there will always be heightened observation - it is rare for the sighted to make themselves blind purposefully. But it does happen in the animal kingdom through evolution from time to time. Personally I don't like the outcome of evolving no sight, but then again I'm not a naked mole rat or cave fish so I can't really speak with experience or authority on the subject.

Priorities (2)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about a year ago | (#45212419)

You can tell what the priorities of the Obama administration are by who they hold accountable. People can die in Benghazi, give guns to Mexican drug lords, abuse the powers of the IRS, but when it comes to tweeting, somebody has to go down.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>