×

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!

Bush Campaign Offices Burglarized

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the dirty-pool dept.

Republicans 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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

194 comments

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10409719)

Hahahahaha I did it. Scheissegern is gay.

Two equally plausible scenarios (5, Insightful)

russeljns (806466) | more than 9 years ago | (#10409755)

1. Democratic Party operatives stole the computers. 2. Republican Party operatives stage a fake theft to make the Democrats look bad.

No, three equally plausible scenarios! (5, Funny)

El (94934) | more than 9 years ago | (#10409772)

3. Democratic Party operatives planted bags of pretzels, bicycles, and a Segway in an attempt to do in the incumbent president.

While we're on this note (1)

u-238 (515248) | more than 9 years ago | (#10410269)

let's not forget the 4th possible scenario...

4. Republican Party operatives unsuspectingly invited the theives after breaking the window themselves during a football practice session. Apparently they're planning on infiltrating one of Kerry's live campaign speehs and tossing him a football [footballfansfortruth.us].

Bush-speak... (4, Informative)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 9 years ago | (#10411269)

Burglarized?

A burglar might burgle a property, in which case the property has been burgled

Re:Two equally plausible scenarios (3, Insightful)

avalys (221114) | more than 9 years ago | (#10409773)

Yeah, or some junkie looking for quick cash broke into the offices, found a few laptops that had for some reason been left sitting around overnight, got spooked before he could take anything else, and left.

Not everything is a conspiracy.

Re:Two equally plausible scenarios (1)

russeljns (806466) | more than 9 years ago | (#10409789)

True.
I didn't mean the only 2 possible. I meant they were equally plausible.

Re:Two equally plausible scenarios (5, Insightful)

br0ck (237309) | more than 9 years ago | (#10409780)

3. Random theft

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:Two equally plausible scenarios (5, Insightful)

Radical Rad (138892) | more than 9 years ago | (#10409991)

I can't help but wonder about the "fake" Bush service records too. They were created in such a way as to appear genuine until closely scrutinized. What if the content of the documents were generally correct but forged versions were prepared by Republicans to discredit the real ones that they feared were about to turn up. The Colonel's secretary stated on camera that although she did not type these particular documents, they were in agreement with her former boss's attitude and words. Also a member of the unit who was in the CQ the day the Bush records were disposed of told his story on camera. No doubt some neo hitler youth will accuse me of wearing a tinfoil hat despite that I am only suggesting this as a possibility, but I have heard of much stranger goings-on in Washington which actually came to light. Look at Watergate for a thoroughly investigated example of our two party's shenanigans.

Re:Two equally plausible scenarios (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 9 years ago | (#10410329)

I've been reading "Silent Coup" and I know exactly what you mean. It's really frightening because I'm sure we never hear about 99% of this stuff.

Re:Two equally plausible scenarios (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10410488)

I wouldn't accuse you of wearing a tinfoil hat...I might call you a demogogue for bringing up possibilities with no factual evidence. Oh yeah, and for invoking Godwin's Law.

Unproven assertions that Karl Rove has done this in the past don't count.

Re:Two equally plausible scenarios (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10410602)

I might call you a demogogue for bringing up possibilities with no factual evidence.

There is no such word as demogogue, Einstein. If you mean demagogue [reference.com], then you should go look the word up in a dictionary where you will learn that the term applies properly only to a leader who appeals to peoples emotions. For example, a president who tells everyone that Sadam Hussain was behind 911 when it was not true... is a demagogue. A president who says that he knows Sadam Hussain has weapons of mass destruction which then turns out to be a lie... is a demagogue. A president who says that a defeated, underdeveloped nation on the other side of the earth is a threat to the superpower know as the United States... is a demagogue. A president who calls his opponent 'wavering' and 'waffling' when that opponents positions have been steadfast... is a demagogue.

Re:Two equally plausible scenarios (2, Insightful)

Grym (725290) | more than 9 years ago | (#10410632)

"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 (5, Insightful)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 9 years ago | (#10410739)

There have been plenty of analyses. The common letters (etaoinshrdlu...) are worn like they would be on a typewriter, and all the letters show slight variations in vertical and horizontal position and impression, just as they would be on a real mechanical typewriter. No one who had the patience for that kind of fakery would slip up on the obvious ones like letterhead.

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 (1)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 9 years ago | (#10410955)

I agree with most of what you say. But what about Kerry? This guy puts himself in for purple hearts for what amount to scratches.

They're both lousy bums, and they're the only choice we're being given. So, which is it, Kodos or Kang?

Re:You aren't much of an expert either (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10411000)

If that were true then everyone there must have been doing the same thing including the republicans "swifts boat vets". At least Kerry did his duty before coming back to speak against the war. He didn't use his familys wealth to pull strings and get a stateside national guard post like chickenhawk bush did and then send boys to die when he was too afraid even to risk his life for his country.

Easy choice (4, Insightful)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 9 years ago | (#10411167)

I'd vote for the guy who got three purple hearts, a silver star, and a bronze star, anytime, over the guy who took the rich boy coward's way out and won't admit there was anything even remotely improper about it.

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.

Re:Easy choice (1)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 9 years ago | (#10411232)

Figures. I also ask the bush fanatics, and get lame-ass answers like this one. How does one let their brain rot enough to think like this. Have they surgically attached the puppet strings to your head and torso yet?

Why would you want either of them? If this was football, it would be somehow fathomable. But whatever. My sole, small consolation is that a fool like you is likely to suffer just as much as myself when one of these two boobs wins.

Oh, not so (2, Insightful)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 9 years ago | (#10411313)

If I had to choose between Kerry and Bush, based solely on their military service or what their military service showed of their character, it would be Kerry in a heartbeat, for the reasons stated above.

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:Easy choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10411438)

I'd vote for the guy who got three purple hearts, a silver star, and a bronze star, anytime, over the guy who took the rich boy coward's way out and won't admit there was anything even remotely improper about it.

What you really mean is that you hate Bush and will vote for Kerry despite what dozens of people who actually saw him in action, or the people who suffered because of him, have to say [swiftvets.com] about the very reason you say you are voting for him. (His medals.) If what Bush did was approved by his commanders and allowed by regulation, it was proper. That is why he got an honorable discharge from a component of the armed forces of the United States. (Like Kerry.) Get over it.

To me, the Bush documents are plausible. (1, Interesting)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 9 years ago | (#10411004)


60 Minutes II Editors,

To me, the Bush documents publicized by CBS are plausible.

I was prepared to believe the Bush documents were forgeries because of reading someone's comment before I saw the documents. However, when I saw the documents, I laughed. The Bush documents contain an artifacts, such as a shift in baseline, that is characteristic of the typesetting machines of the time.

I think I have provided valuable information below about the plausibility of the documents. The information gives perhaps useful ideas about how to continue the CBS investigation.

It is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to the Bush documents that some machine that a critic has chosen cannot do typesetting. Critics should just choose another machine that can.

Decades ago, it sometimes happened that I would go to some company that did both typesetting and typing to pick up my typing, and be handed, not pages of typing, but pages of typesetting film. The first time that happened I was scared, because if the company thought that had I ordered typesetting, the cost would be very high. I said something like, "I wanted this typed, not typeset." As proof I said something like, "It's just an informal business letter." The woman behind the counter laughed and said something like, "I was at the typesetter when someone handed me your job, and I was too lazy to get up and go over to the typewriter." "But what about the cost?" "I'm only charging you $4."

The woman thought she was doing me a favor (while wasting her company's typesetting film), but she wasn't. Sure the letter looked wonderful, but typesetting was so psychologically powerful back then that the fact that a letter was typeset would distract the reader from the message. (It should be obvious that I copied the letter from the typesetting film to a piece of paper.)

Why did she typeset the letters? Maybe she was training someone in how to use the typesetting machine. Maybe she discovered that she didn't have any more of the one-use carbon ribbons. Or maybe she was just lazy, as in one of the incidents that happened to me.

NOTHING about what you see when you print a document typed in Times New Roman in Microsoft Word has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with either Microsoft Word or Microsoft Corporation.

On the computer I am using to type this, Times New Roman is supplied to me as the file times.ttf, dated 08/29/2002, 05:00 AM. If you look at the file with a tool that can view binary, you will see this message, and a lot of other heavy-duty legal language:

"This typeface is the property of Monotype Typography and its use by you is covered under the terms of a license agreement. You have obtained this typeface software either directly from Monotype or together with software distributed by one of Monotype's licensees."

Microsoft Word ONLY follows the information in this file. You can prove this to yourself by downloading and installing a copy of Open Office from www.OpenOffice.org. Open Office is better in important ways than Microsoft Office, and it is free, as in "You don't pay anything." Type anything you want in both Microsoft Office and Open Office, using the same font, and notice that it looks identical.

Open Office did not automatically superscript the "th". I didn't like that superscripting thirty years ago, and I don't like it now. Only a company like Microsoft, that has limited interest in idealistic products, would make the superscripting of "th" automatic. In 1972 it had already been decades since that was in fashion, although it persisted on some machines, and was used by novices. Even when it was "in fashion" that was only because there was a period when typesetters liked to show off what they could do.

To superscript the "th" in Open Office, I selected the "th" and chose Format/ Character/ Position/ Superscript. The output was identical to the output of the version of Microsoft Word in Office 2000.

This is not surprising, since all of the information is stored in Monotype's font file, and none of the information is stored in the word processor. What chance would there be that Monotype or Linotype would choose to license a file to Microsoft that would corrupt the most famous font in the world, that Monotype owned?

People thought Times Roman was a work of art in the 1770s when the first version was designed for the London Times. I have spent hours in the rare book room of Oxford University Library, Oxford, England, examining type faces used in books printed as early as the 1620s. (A graduate of Oxford signed an application for me to get a library card.) It is only when you see what went before that you can fully appreciate that Times Roman was an advancement in western civilization.

People thought version 2 of Times Roman, Times New Roman, was an even better work of art when it was designed by Stanley Morison and Victor Lardent [linotype.com] in 1932. Everything that produces proportional characters since then has, at a minimum, tried to imitate Times New Roman exactly. The old proportional spacing IBM Selectric typewriters and MS Word look identical because they are trying to be identical.

All of this should indicate that no one should be surprised if something typeset today looks exactly like something done so recently as 1972.

I never use Times New Roman. I use Bitstream Charter, a modification of Times New Roman. If you study the application of mathematics called Fourier Transforms to fonts, you can see why Bitsteam Charter is better. Still, I have great respect for Times New Roman, and I am someone who thinks it is important to show respect where it is deserved and important never to seem to show respect for things that don't deserve respect.

It is very useful, if you are interested in the question of the plausibility of the Bush documents, to talk to people who have been in the U.S. Air Force, people who had experience with typesetting back then, and people who have either been alcoholics, or who have studied alcoholism.

On September 15, 2004, we learned a little more about the documents. Marian Carr Knox, Lt. Colonel Killian's secretary, supplied some valuable information. See the story on the Dallas Morning News web site (free registration required): Ex-aide disavows Bush Guard memos [dallasnews.com]. If you read the article, she said she didn't type the documents, but that the content was correct.

Here are some quotes:

"Mrs. Knox said she did all of Col. Killian's typing, including memos for a personal "cover his back" file he kept in a locked drawer of his desk."

"She said that the culture of the time was that men didn't type office-related documents, and she expressed doubt that Col. Killian would have typed the memos. She said she would typically type his memos from his handwritten notes, which she would then destroy."

Ask yourself two questions: 1) Why would he bother to write such memos? 2) Why did Lt. Colonel Killian keep a secret, hidden file?

I know nothing of the USAF culture now, but if you were in the USAF at the time, it's obvious. The writer signed the memos to protect himself from any allegation that he voluntarily allowed George W. Bush to corrupt military procedure. The issue was very serious; you could be reprimanded or court-martialed if the IG (Inspector General) decided to investigate, and it was found that you were part of an effort to transgress deliberately against regulations, especially in so important a matter. The office of the IG often allowed corruption, but you could never be sure that they would continue. For example, they would prosecute transgressors sometimes for reasons having to do with trying to prevent criticism of the IG office. It could be extremely capricious.

A reprimand might end all chances of promotion, a huge issue if you are expecting to spend your working life in the military. Even if you did not expect promotion, a reprimand could make your life miserable in many ways.

Okay, but Lt. Colonel Killian was writing the memos to show that he was following regulations. Why, then, did he want to keep them hidden? Again, it's obvious if you served in the USAF at the time. He was saying he would not help an alcoholic, George W. Bush, avoid regulations, and he needed to keep that secret to protect himself from attacks by the other alcoholics.

I was subjected to a serious attack when I objected to people ordering or taking expensive military electronic components for their private electronic projects. I had gone to our local stock to get a particular part so that I could finish a repair, and the parts bin was empty.

Once during the time I repaired F-106s, the successor to the F-102 aircraft George W. Bush flew, but 2 years before he was in the ANG, we were notified that the base commander had called a meeting of all pilots and all crew chiefs. This sounded weird, since there was an extremely strong caste system, and crew chiefs would never be in a meeting with pilots. Although I only went out on the flight line when there were unusual electrical problems like ground loops, the meeting affected me since crew chiefs had to supervise repair requests, and the meeting interrupted the work flow.

I remember going to dinner at a restaurant on the base that night, and a friend joined me. I asked about the meeting, and he said he had talked to a crew chief. In the meeting, the base commander had told the pilots not to drink on a night before flying. He told the crew chiefs that, if they saw any evidence of drinking, such as a hangover, they were to stop the pilot from flying! He gave the crew chiefs that authority.

I remember being sorry I asked, because I found the answer depressing. First, the base commander's order showed the typical utter lack of social sophistication. No crew chief would risk telling a pilot anything. We speculated that, if a pilot arrived for a flight falling down drunk, the crew chief might express concern. This would be utterly useless, since alcoholics usually don't seem like they are drunk.

For a while I worried about an alcoholic pilot crashing into the maintenance building where I worked, on the edge of the flight line. However, we didn't know of any incidents like that at any of the bases. Later I learned that's just not how alcoholism works. George W. Bush's arrest for DUI (Driving Under the Influence of alcohol) and Dick Cheney's two arrests for DUI probably were not because they risked getting into an accident, but because they were weaving on the road. Considering how drunk alcoholics often are, they don't have a high rate of accidents, maybe only 20 to 50 times higher than sober people, I'm guessing.

The other fact that I found depressing was that the situation was so out of control that the base commander would feel compelled to say something so obvious: Don't drink before flying.

Some people liked to talk about everything, but I was careful not to inquire if I was not prepared to handle the answer. Still, I would hear things, like the story I already mentioned about an airman kicking a $22,000 gyro assembly off a wing because he didn't want to work on the weekend. The military at the time made it abundantly clear that it did not care about the people, and some of the people decided not to care about the military.

It is helpful to realize that the culture of the military back then was extraordinarily abusive. I was paid a total of $5400 for four years' work. That's not $5400 per year, that is for all four years taken together, even though I was promoted rapidly. The U.S. government at the time stole my work.

Because of the low pay, airmen were often desperately poor. Typically, if an airman was married, his wife would try to get work, even though most businesses were a long way from the base. There was extreme tolerance of this, from everyone. I remember thinking that this was a breath of kindness from an organization that was often harsh. For example, an airman's wife might stay after work and use a military typewriter to do typing for pay. I never knew anyone to even hint at objecting to this. People needed to feed their children.

(Maybe nothing has changed. Now soldiers come back from Iraq wounded and find that the U.S. government is not willing to give them good medical care.)

Lt. Colonel Killian's secretary, his son, and I all think that the language of the memos was not usual. To me that is by far the most important thing that needs to be explained. The memos seem far too informal. There could be a good reason for this. A secretary was often an airman's wife who had gotten A grades in English in high school. It would often happen that a secretary was far more literate than her boss. Maybe she even read books. When most military secretaries said that they typed their bosses' memos from notes, they meant that they re-wrote the notes to reflect military language.

I remember preparing some document and having a secretary criticize me sharply for not using the proper language. She said she would do it again, using the information I had supplied. I remember that I thought that what bothered her was so minor that it was hard for me to understand her objections.

Do not discount my statement that people would be attacked for going against the military culture, or even appearing to do so. Someone who went against the way things were done could face extreme harassment. The attacks on me for telling an airman that he could not steal electronic parts ended only when the main attacker was killed in an auto accident. He was driving fast on the wrong side of the road, went over a hill, and hit an oncoming car that was larger than his.

The Bush memos were therefore dangerous. On the one hand, if the base commander or IG decided to "get a hair up his ass", as they said back then, you could be severely reprimanded or even court-martialed for going against USAF regulations, even though a hundred other, similar cases were allowed. You needed documents to prove that you could not be held liable. It didn't take much. Talk was considered worthless, but documents had considerable power with marginally literate people.

On the other hand, if anyone knew that you were objecting to the effects of alcoholism, the attacks would be extraordinarily severe, secret, and could come from any direction, maybe even from a military man's wife, who might be trying to protect her alcoholic husband and means of support.

So, it is easy to understand how the memos could come into existence. Military men were often enthusiasts of all things military. If Lt. Colonel Killian watched an army movie the night before, he might have used army language in a memo. It is at least plausible that he wrote some memos, wanted to keep them secret even from his secretary, who might easily make an unguarded statement to another woman on the base, and gave them to a woman who came around who was looking to do office work. Maybe she worked at the base printing office, and used her typesetter to do the memos. Maybe he paid her with discretionary office funds, or out of his own pocket. Maybe he went to the base printing office himself, during the swing shift, and asked to have the memos typed while he waited, and got typesetting instead. There's no way to prove this is true or not true, but it is at least plausible. His rank was high enough that he would have gotten immediate attention.

The superscripted "th" is easy to understand. That affectation may have been out of fashion in major publications, but novices would often experiment with doing something that showed that they had access to an expensive machine. Note the "th" in one place in one of the Air National Guard documents released by the White House. It's just tinkering, and more than once I told typists and typesetters not to do that in any work being done for me.

Anyhow, we know with certainty that something important happened. George W. Bush did acceptably well in his pilot class, and has said that he enjoyed flying. He completed many flights successfully. Then one day, in the same month that the Air National Guard started demanding drug tests, he was unavailable. Why? He has indicated he was an alcoholic. Laura Bush said she considered leaving him because of his drinking. It's easy to guess that he was drinking too heavily and continuously to fly. An active alcoholic who met his commitments would be a very rare person. That's one of the things active alcoholics do; they try to avoid meeting their commitments.

Lt. Colonel Killian's secretary, Marian Carr Knox, accepted the story she was told, that George W. Bush disobeyed a direct order from his commander, because he wanted to help in his father's Senate campaign. However, it is likely she did not examine the truth or falsehood of that story. The abruptness of George Bush's failure to do his duties is an indication of alcoholism, not political work.

You can read her testimony on the CBS web site: For The Record: Bush Documents [cbsnews.com].

Most voters have little understanding of the psychological effects of alcoholism, so they don't realize how many indications there are that Bush administration is influenced by those effects. Both U.S. President George W. Bush and U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney are recovered alcoholics. That means that they no longer drink, but stopping drinking does not make a thorough change in an alcoholic's personality.

George W. Bush was arrested once for the crime of DUI and Dick Cheney twice:

George W. Bush DUI, 1st record of arrest [futurepower.org]

George W. Bush DUI, 2nd record of arrest [futurepower.org]

Dick Cheney DUI, record of 1st arrest [futurepower.org]

Dick Cheney DUI, record of 2nd arrest [futurepower.org]

DUI means "Driving Under the Influence" of alcohol. A DUI is a conviction for a very serious crime, a crime that endangers everyone on the road, a crime that often kills people. A DUI conviction means that the driver felt such a strong need to be drunk that he or she was willing to take a chance of murder.

Nothing that I've said in this commentary until now attempts to decide whether the Bush documents in question were or were not forgeries. I have only been establishing that the documents are plausible. It appears to me that I am in a position to know what might be plausible.

You can read more about my extensive research about alcoholism under the heading "Method of Corruption #7" in the article: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government [futurepower.org].

You could also read the section after it titled "The psychological effects of alcoholism provide a framework for understanding the Bush administration."

The section after that, "The U.S. government corruption is part of a general social breakdown", mentions that the stress in the Bush family is so high that illegal drug use is quite common. Noelle Bush, Barbara Bush, and Jenna Bush have been arrested for drug use.

Note: George W. Bush admits to being arrested three times. Dick Cheney was arrested at least twice. It seems likely that they are the most arrested President and Vice-President in history.

The issue of alcoholic-influenced behavior in the U.S. government is extremely important because alcoholics usually engage in angry outbursts rather than true relationship building, such as happened with George W. Bush and the second U.S.-Iraq war.

Re:To me, the Bush documents are plausible. (1)

drakaan (688386) | more than 9 years ago | (#10411087)

Ahh, the old "let's pick the least likely scenario just because it's remotely possible that it could explain things" trick.

So, you (or whoever actually wrote this) are saying that the documents are legitimate, even though no-one involved believes the documents to be authentic, and though no-one involved believes that the documents were sent out to be typeset?

I suppose you also believe that when dealing with an alcoholic, it's best to write up a memo yourself and take it to the typesetter, in order to leave a favorable impression on people who will hopefully never read it?

The content of the memos may, indeed, be correct, but those thoughts on it are just plain silly.

It happened to me, several times. (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 9 years ago | (#10411136)


Here's a paragraph from my comment: "Nothing that I've said in this commentary until now attempts to decide whether the Bush documents in question were or were not forgeries. I have only been establishing that the documents are plausible. It appears to me that I am in a position to know what might be plausible."

All I'm saying is that it happened to me, several times, that I took letters to be typed, and they were returned looking like the Bush documents.

I've had a life-long interest in typesetting. The forger would have to be very, very knowledgeable to make those documents, and then what would be accomplished? The forger would only impress people like me.

Re:To me, the Bush documents are plausible. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10411270)

Good grief man! Did you generate that drivel all yourself?! You need to get out more, or get a new hobby.

The idea that a Colonel, whose wife and son said couldn't type, and liked Bush, would use a typesetting machine costing thousands of dollars instead of a typewriter to produce personal memos for record, which are exactly the same as what you would get with only a Microsoft Word version available 22 years later, just to record his grievances about being pressured to favor Bush by a retired general with no power is.... silly.

But, maybe I am wrong. Maybe you are the only man on the planet who can see clearly enough to not only devine the essential truth behind the facade of these forged memos, but to also grasp the essential truths needed to assume the burden of spreading the word about the Timecube [timecube.com]. Maybe you can assume this man's burden [timecube.com] since he is in his 70s and can't continue forever.

Good luck with all that.

Please moderate parent up (1)

Undefined Parameter (726857) | more than 9 years ago | (#10411301)

Even if it's not factually correct or true, the parent is interesting. It may not be directly on-topic, but it's still relevent to the topic in my opinion, be it humble or otherwise.

~UP

Re:You aren't much of an expert either (1, Informative)

Rayonic (462789) | more than 9 years ago | (#10411098)

Here's a rather in-depth analysis for you. [mac.com]

Being crumpled up and run through a copier for a few generations will introduce some variation in the horizontal and vertical spacing (mostly to do with the position of the scanning element.)

But the main jist is that the forged memo is impossible to duplicate on any typewriter of the era -- even the best $3000 Selectric Composer typesetting machine. Whereas if you load up a modern version of MS Word, keep the default settings, and type up and print out the text of the memo, you get a perfect match.

everyone knew how pissed the colonel was about Bush playing fast and loose with his obligation

Says who? Proven liar Bill Burkett? Killian's former secretary (who is now a Democrat)? Killian's wife and son disagree with their claims, and the only hard evidence turned out to be forged.

Bush signed up for 5 yars flight obligation and walked away from the last two years.

Outright incorrect. Bush was denied a place in the flight line in Alabama (too many pilots), so he skipped an invasive medical exam and got grounded. He then finished off his point requirements for the year and left legitimately.

And besides, they were retiring his jet fighter anyway. Even if the option had been available to him, there wasn't enough time left in his Air National Guard duty to train for a new plane.

Sitting for 7 minutes reading a book like a deer in headlights while the country is udner attack --- what kind of bravery is that?

Waiting for the Secret Service to scout out the area and prep an alternate escape route. What did you want him to do, run the country by phone?

On a related note, accoring to Kerry's wife, Kerry was dumbstruck for 20 minutes on 9/11/01 (weren't we all?). Furthermore, Mrs. Kerry thinks Bush acted appropriately. [eddriscoll.com]

He can't even take responsibility for anything.

Well then hold him responsible for his actions. Don't let him off the hook this November -- re-elect him and make him deal with the consequences of his actions, good or bad.

Bullshit! (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 9 years ago | (#10411198)

Let's see here ...

Being crumpled up and run through a copier for a few generations will introduce some variation in the horizontal and vertical spacing (mostly to do with the position of the scanning element.)

and

Whereas if you load up a modern version of MS Word, keep the default settings, and type up and print out the text of the memo, you get a perfect match.

So you can make it mismatch and match at the same time? Crumple it up to make it misaligned and look like a typewritten document, but it still matches Word exactly? Pretty clever!

As for not being required to finish his flight obligation, he signed documents to get into the Guard that he would spend 5 years flying, and only did three. He was ordered to take the physical, and as far as being invasive, sheesh, a standard flight physical which would have incidentally shown up his cocaine usage. He'd taken them before, and he sure as hell supports the war on drugs. I guess he just can't take the heat. He was also told that the Alabama outfit was not acceptable, went ahead on his own and flaked out from both bases anyway. That's responsibility for you!

As for who says the office attitude supported the Colonel, it's interesting that you disavow the secretary's word merely because she is a democrat. I'd guess the secretary knew more about what went on in the office than his wife or children. If he was typing up memos himself to cover his ass for Bush's outside interference, do you think it likely he'd blab to his wife? How old were his children then? I suppose they are republicans, that makes all the difference in the world.

And your last comment, what a joke. Yes, a banker embezzles, keep him in his job to deal with it, that's what you're suggesting. Pretty good. I reckon the rest of your comments are about as intelligent. Let me have your bank account while your at it, I could have some fun with that.

Re:Bullshit! (1, Informative)

Rayonic (462789) | more than 9 years ago | (#10411275)

So you can make it mismatch and match at the same time? Crumple it up to make it misaligned and look like a typewritten document, but it still matches Word exactly? Pretty clever!


Because the alignment distortion is consistent with modern photocopiers. Did you even look at the link I gave you? Here's a shorter one [littlegreenfootballs.com]. Keep in mind that nothing comes even vaguely as close as MS Word.

As for not being required to finish his flight obligation, he signed documents to get into the Guard that he would spend 5 years flying, and only did three.

Well, seeing as he broke no rules and got an honorable discharge, I'd have to say everything went fine.

a standard flight physical which would have incidentally shown up his cocaine usage. He'd taken them before, and he sure as hell supports the war on drugs. I guess he just can't take the heat. He was also told that the Alabama outfit was not acceptable, went ahead on his own and flaked out from both bases anyway.

Where's the proof? Still being fabricated?

If he was typing up memos himself to cover his ass for Bush's outside interference

He couldn't type and the memos were forged. Please try to pay attention.

do you think it likely he'd blab to his wife? How old were his children then?

Okay, then, actual, legit documents show Killian praising Bush. [mac.com] Allow me to quote:
"Lt Bush is a dynamic outstanding young officer. He clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot. Lt Bush is possessed of sound judgement, yet is a tenacious competitor and an aggressive pilot. He is mature beyond his age and experience level as evidenced by his recent participation in the unit firing deployment."

Just give it up already, will you? You're embarassing yourself.

Circular arguments go nowhere (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 9 years ago | (#10411365)

You say the documents don't count because they are forged, and they are forged because they contradict your position.

That praise of Bush is bog-standard fitness reporting. Ever heard of grade inflation? The military has it in spades. Just about everyone gets an A. You have to be really atrocious to get a bad report. Besides, no one says Bush wasn't ok to start with.

If you want to pick and choose documents, go ahead. There are a whole lot of documents, even some released by the white house, showing that he did not meet his obligation. Of course the Bushies like yourself say those documents don't count, since they don't support Bush. They say the honorable discharge proves all the others are lies. This all assumes there are no favors done in the military, which is given the lie by the very fact that Bush jumped the queue to get into the guard and never finished his flight obligation. 5 years. That covered not just Alabama, it also covered a year or two of Yale. It was not 5 years if you feel like it, or 5 years of getting dental exams. It was 5 years of flight duty. He skipped the last two. He signed an agreement for 5 years of flight duty, he walked away from the last two.

No matter how many documents you say are forged, the bare fact is that he signed for 5 years of flight duty and skipped the last two. No quibbling about crumpled photocopies or republicans kids' memories can change that.

But I guess that simple fact embarasses you, because you keep avoiding it and concentrating on crumpled Word documents that somehow get misaligned enough to look like they are typewritten yet still perfectly match Word documents, even tho the purported photocopying was surely on different copiers.

Re:Two equally plausible scenarios (4, Interesting)

Seraphim_72 (622457) | more than 9 years ago | (#10411081)

And even if he went crazy in office, he'd only be there for, at most, 4 years.
See there are two problems here.
  • 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. This is not only a Republican issue, ask any good Republican about Clintons second term, or even better Ronnie's.
  • The second is that I, a person who is so liberal that it would make your teeth hurt, has many (many, many it seems :() very conservative (btw, you def, not mine, by mine ...well...) friends have heard them say the following "Well, he (quote [include finger motions]) wasn't elected(/quote) Then it is only his first term right?? HUGE laughter ensues.

    And as a Liberal of the First Stripe I will tell you this; we are scared of the "Patriot Act" the Eternal "War on Terror" and the loss of life in Iraq - on who ever's side. We are Dismayed at the sigle mindedness of the President, and see his "Stedfastness" as ignorance. We see Big Oil and $money$ everywhere - and it scares us. The Bush White House has done nothing to ally those fears while chuckleing about them under thier collective breath. He walked into office wanting this war and drummed up a reason - or at least that is what two of his closest advisors have said. His White House exposed an Agent for political backlash, his record as a military man is suspect. All of this bothers us, and we want it talked about, the Administration will not, "All is Good" is what they say and all we hear. From Revolution to Iraq, mine is the only generation of my family that has never gone to battle for the USA - I was born at the wrong time it seems, I have a nephew and a good friend on the ground in Iraq - I heard it said on the radio that this war is this generation's Vietnam - the other guy corrected him - he said 'No, this is Isreals West Bank.'

    I am an Armchair General (same thing as an armchair quarterback, but you have to worry about MRE's) I fought the war in Iraq 5 years before we went in - there was no way to win. Truth be told Bush Sr. has several quotes about Iraq - all of them right - look them up, some great statements about why you would *never* want to go into Iraq, - Jr. should have read them.

    Sorry it was you, but I had to get that off my chest. Take Care.

    Sera

Re:Two equally plausible scenarios (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10411172)

I can't help but wonder about the "fake" Bush service records too. They were created in such a way as to appear genuine until closely scrutinized. What if the content of the documents were generally correct but forged versions were prepared by Republicans to discredit the real ones that they feared were about to turn up.

The forged memos that you are refering to were pathetic forgeries prepared by someone with more Anti-Bush venom than brains. CBS's own experts warned them about the documents, but 60 Minutes went ahead with the story anyway. Maybe that was because Mary Mapes, the producer of the story who is also known as a liberal activist, had been after the story for five years and this was one of the last chances to get the story out before the election. Well, at least she had the decency to put her source for the documents, Bill Burkett, an ardent Bush hater and Democrat activist, in touch with the Kerry campaign as he requested.

You can read more of this pathetic story here [washingtontimes.com], here [washingtonpost.com], and here [11alive.com].

Hopefully this will put some of your fears to rest.

Re:Two equally plausible scenarios (1)

Radical Rad (138892) | more than 9 years ago | (#10411368)

Just because the person who produced the documents dislikes Bush doesn't mean that the Republican Party Special-ops could not have chosen him as an unwitting patsy. He would be perfect in fact. The only challenge would have been to put the republican made forgeries into his hands. It could be done through a supposed mix up in fax numbers for example. They obtain a phone number for a party office which is only one digit off from some number where they are sure the "misdirected" fax would be passed to Bill Burkett such as the office of a friend or family member of Burkett's.

Now I'm not saying that this did happen. Only that it could have happened this way. They are certainly capable of planning and executing something this simple, and I am sure there are elements of their organization that are more than willing. Do you remember the reasons Ross Perot gave for dropping out of the presidential race? He called them 'Republican dirty tricks' and it had something to do with threats to ruin his daughters wedding with pictures of her in delicto flagrante with another woman.

Re:Two equally plausible scenarios (1)

spRed (28066) | more than 9 years ago | (#10410167)

Ah no, the evil genius of Karl Rove is far more subtle. The computers were _actually_ stolen, and he convinced some low level DNC patsies to do it because:

1) The plans on the computers were fake outs
2) The low level patsies will be easilly caught, making for a scandal
3) Karl Rove is eeeeEEEEvil.

This comment is not the opinion of the author, just guessing what democracticunderground.com will be saying about now.

Tinfoil hats have no part affiliation.

Re:Two equally plausible scenarios (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10410587)

3. Republican Party operatives leak information about how poor their campaign office security is, after planting fake voter information and strategy documents on laptops.

Unsurprisingly (5, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 9 years ago | (#10409759)

Karl Rove also denies any involvement.

Re:Unsurprisingly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10410088)

I think the parent was attempting to make a joke.

A very good one at that.

Karl has this habit of claiming all bad Bush related things are "not to his knowledge". Plausible Deniability makes me LOL.

Re:Unsurprisingly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10410308)

Well, of course I don't know who did it or why, and I'm not going to speculate.

Instead, I just want to point out that this is just the kind of news the Karl Rove is thrilled to hear. What better way to distract the media from his candidates morbidly poor performance in yesterday's debate than a top quality scandal that can be spun to pin on the evil Democrats trying to steal the election?

Why, Mr. Rove must see this as having more legs than even the Swift Boats Numbnuts Against Kerry. It's perfect!

Afterall, if you can't win an argument, change the subject. I predict the press will be successfully distracted.

Of course... (0, Troll)

GypC (7592) | more than 9 years ago | (#10409767)

...no matter who gets caught and how much proof is offered, the posters at DU (and many here) will claim it was all a Republican plot to discredit the Democrats.

:-)

Re:Of course... (1)

Jherico (39763) | more than 9 years ago | (#10409796)

will claim it was all a Republican plot to discredit the Democrats

And vice versa.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10409824)

Why would DU claim that it was a Democrat plot to discredit the Republicans? That's not consistent with their (DU's) political viewpoint.

In other news (1)

iendedi (687301) | more than 9 years ago | (#10409937)

The republican party recently learned of the theft of very sensitive voting machine related data from Republican Party national headquarters.

One big-wig Republican party guy to another, "Hey, remember that guy in our office in Washington state that is always talking about voting machines?"

Other big wig, "Umm... Oh yea... I think I get your point, we want everyone to think it was the work of one fanatic to take the heat off the party, right?"

First big wig, "I'll set it up"

Re:Of course... (1)

Curtman (556920) | more than 9 years ago | (#10409941)

no matter who gets caught and how much proof is offered

What? And miss a perfect opportunity to blame the terrorists?

I really do doubt it's the Demms (4, Insightful)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 9 years ago | (#10410407)

It seems like kind of a stupid idea to do this. Seriously.

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.

I did it (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10409787)

Those laptops were not running Free Software, as should be befitting of a party that defends Freedom. I have reformatted and installed Debian GNU/Linux; as soon as I get X, the sound card, the ethernet card, and the USB working, I will return them with a polite note.

-- Smelly GNU/Hippie 'puter poacher

Re:I did it (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10410505)

as soon as I get X, the sound card, the ethernet card, and the USB working, I will return them with a polite note.

Better hurry, the election is less than 5 weeks away...

Re:I did it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10410888)

Dude, seriously, this is funny . . . I needed a break from all the partisan bickering :)

Re:I did it (1)

bergeron76 (176351) | more than 9 years ago | (#10411088)

I think the Patriot Act makes it illegal to joke about subjects that could put the American people in harms way. Your post about Free Software is clearly in violation of this new [proposed] law. Please remove the post, or I will be forced to call in my friends in Washington; they will have no choice but to shut slashdot.org down entirely as a "potential enabler of a potential enemy combatant of the state".

Free Software is EVIL and only Al Queida sanctions it's use; and we'll have none of that!

Re:They didn't like my version (2, Insightful)

Jherico (39763) | more than 9 years ago | (#10409813)

Maybe because your version repaints it as a fiat accompli that the democrats were behind this.

Right. Because the democratic modus operandi has always been a rock through a window at 4 in the morning.

Re:They didn't like my version (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 9 years ago | (#10410053)

As opposed to the normal Slashdot posts that are models of clarity and objectivity?

Re:They didn't like my version (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10410293)

Maybe because your version repaints it as a fiat accompli that the democrats were behind this.

If 'fiat accompli' means humorous, then I am guilty.

NB

Too liberal. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10409845)

You should have phrased it as follows:

Communist Hollywood Elite Liberals Take Time Off From Killing Babies And Homosexual Intercourse To Steal Computers From Ordinary Plain-Spoken Republicans Who Want The Best For America

That would be fair and balanced. Your version comes across as something Noam Chomsky might say.

Re:Too liberal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10410124)

Interestingly enough, that's the exact headline Fox News is using.

And on The O'Reilly Factor, "fair and balanced" Bill O'Reilly announed "Pinhead Liberals broke into God's House today"

Re:They didn't like my version (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10410306)

"There is also evidence [nwsource.com] that the Democrats are taking a page from Watergate history."

Give me a break. There is not even the slightest shred of evidence supporting anything of the sort in that article. There is an entirely unfounded accusation (from the State Republican Party Chairman; hardly an unbiased source) but not a hint of any proof. If this is your idea of evidence I certainly hope you never get called to jury duty.

Stolen computers (1)

dacarr (562277) | more than 9 years ago | (#10409795)

Let's see. Computers were stolen.

What I suspect is that it was a routine case of people stealing other peoples' stuff. If they were after the data, there are other more surreptitious means to go about this, but I get the feeling that they were more concerned with the hardware than the data.

72 hour plan leaked (5, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 9 years ago | (#10409807)

From TFA: "But, he said, the loss creates a potential security breach about the campaign's so-called 72-hour plan, the Bush get-out-the-vote effort."

The following is from the document they found:

Bush's 72 hour plan

  1. Tell people to vote for me.
  2. Remind them that my opponent is in favor of terrorism.
  3. Remind them that my opponent forgot about Poland.
  4. Ask Mr. Cheney what to do next.
  5. ???
  6. President!

Re:72 hour plan leaked (1)

Hard_Code (49548) | more than 9 years ago | (#10410121)

7. $$$$$$$$!

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Your comment looks too much like ascii argt.

Alert Forrest Gump! (1)

dpilot (134227) | more than 9 years ago | (#10409834)

Where's Forrest Gump when we need him?

Re:Alert Forrest Gump! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10410437)

Where's Forrest Gump when we need him?

He was accidently killed by friendly fire in Iraq while searching for WMD.

In other news... (4, Insightful)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 9 years ago | (#10409906)

In other news, if said computers were using encrypted filesystems, none of this would matter. Could be a simple computer theft, could be DNC dirty tricks, could be anything. It just wouldn't matter.

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?

You make a good point... (1)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 9 years ago | (#10409964)

...about the need to use encryption for sensitive stuff, but that still doesn't justify the theft, especially if it was done for political purposes.

Perhaps I ought to pass along the suggestion to my local party offices. Not much of a leftist-hacker crowd down here, though. Seattle, now, that's a different story.

I'll probably send that suggestion into the national GOP offices. "Hey, this maybe-liberal guy on slashdot has a really good idea...". Maybe even get you credit for it :P

Re: In other news... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 9 years ago | (#10410139)


> In other news, if said computers were using encrypted filesystems, none of this would matter. Could be a simple computer theft, could be DNC dirty tricks, could be anything. It just wouldn't matter.

Yes, and politicians should be particularly careful to make sure they encrypt their /pr0n partition. Larry Flynt is probably offering a bounty on the computers already.

Security? (2, Insightful)

Rheingold (2741) | more than 9 years ago | (#10409973)

And we've got these people in charge of national security?

Re:Security? (4, Insightful)

Hank Reardon (534417) | more than 9 years ago | (#10410128)

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.

Re:Security? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10410595)

This latest laptop theft just goes to show how far the evildoers will go in their plot to destroy the freedom they hate.

I can't believe those stole our laptops, they had firewalls and Norton and everything!

the top ten (4, Funny)

pizza_milkshake (580452) | more than 9 years ago | (#10410003)

the top ten things the Republican laptops were last seen doing:

10. hacked by democrats looking for Windows XP serial#
9. kicked off IRC for inventing words
8. tricked into running a Word macro virus by therightisright@hotmail.com
7. accidentally installed YouthfulIndiscretion XP, regrets it
6. voting negatively in the online polls at homosexualmarriage.org
5. busy checking paypal transactions from SaudiArabia@hotmail.com
4. engaged in IM session at Halliburton.com
3. busy DDoS-ing iran.com
2. browser choked on pretzel.com
1. infected by trojan whilst browsing alt.sex.binary.gay.marriage

Re:the top ten (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 9 years ago | (#10410315)

This is only funny because the Democrats all use Macs.

Bob Dole accidently set loose an e-mail virus while looking at V1@gr@ spam.

stolen (3, Funny)

durtbag (694991) | more than 9 years ago | (#10410127)

Those b0x3n must have also had all of Bush's witty retorts that were planned for the debate last night. God knows he could have used them....

BTW, anyone know where to find the debate video for d-l? Not streaming, straight download, be it torrent or otherwise. Thanks.

Even with this... (3)

aztektum (170569) | more than 9 years ago | (#10410144)

They act like it's just two parties. They automatically blame the Democrats. What if it was people from the Green or Libertarian Party.

Oh wait, I forgot those two groups have no chance of winning for President so lets automatically blame our biggest competitor.

Anything that comes out of Washington D.C. these days just makes me sick to my stomach.

Re:Even with this... (1)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 9 years ago | (#10410176)

I'd say it was the news media. They derive the largest direct benefit from panicked people.

Re:Even with this... (1)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 9 years ago | (#10410814)

If all the brains in Washington were dynamite, they couldn't generate enough force to blow a nose.

Karl Rove tapped his own office in Texas... (5, Insightful)

for(;;); (21766) | more than 9 years ago | (#10410193)

...during an election in, I believe, the mid-70's. (See "Bush's Brain".) All the reporters could tell Rove was behind it, but had to report the bullshit anyway. That's what will happen this time.

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.

Re:Karl Rove tapped his own office in Texas... (5, Interesting)

megabulk3000 (305530) | more than 9 years ago | (#10410674)

That's funny, I was just reading about this here [theatlantic.com], in an article by Joshua Green in the Atlantic Monthly about Rove's dirty tricks. Here's the quote:
One of the first highlights of his career was the famously tight 1986 Texas governor's race, in which his candidate and mentor, the Republican oilman Bill Clements, sought to oust the Democratic incumbent Mark White. The race is legendary in Texas political lore for Rove's discovery that his office was bugged--news of which, coincidentally or not, distracted attention from an evening debate in which his candidate was expected to fare poorly.

A possible related incident? (1)

JimMarch(equalccw) (710249) | more than 9 years ago | (#10410197)

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/?q=node/view/938&PHP SESSID=d9a9956c80c5aacf55c9a6b7faea173d Bev Harris reports that somebody in Snohomish County, WA used fake technician's credentials to get polling place access on the day of the primaries (9/14/04). Election workers report that it's "Democrats" doing it - we don't know (yet) how that determination was made...bumper sticker maybe? They got a car license plate number... Bev is filing a public records request to try and get details on that case. If it IS the same bunch and we can cross-link the Snohomish investigation to this one, we may be able to catch whodunit.

Those darn activists (1, Funny)

lightspawn (155347) | more than 9 years ago | (#10410218)

You know, I bet these were those activist judges you keep hearing about.

Anyway, I'm sure all the sensitive data (if not the entire hard drive) was encrypted, so the only thing we have to worry about is the terrorists finally getting their hands on encryption software.

Ironically? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10410454)

"...ironically, they're comparing it to Watergate."

How is a comparison to Watergate ironic?

Why this isn't like Watergate (5, Insightful)

Masker (25119) | more than 9 years ago | (#10410469)

1) Watergate was the national campaign headquarters for a national political party.
2) The Watergate burglars [watergate.info] were caught red-handed in the offices

Trying to equate this to Watergate is really weak.

Re:Why this isn't like Watergate (1)

Spamsonite (154239) | more than 9 years ago | (#10411251)

They aren't trying to equate it to Watergate (i.e. say that it is equal). They are comparing the two events.

Dislexics of the World, Untie!

My question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10410745)

Why did they leave the laptops there ?

Isn't the point of a laptop to take it with you ?

I have never known anyone, at least in the busness world, to leave their laptops at work

Just kind of strange to me.

To everyone saying this was Rove's plot (1, Flamebait)

a.different.perspect (817184) | more than 9 years ago | (#10410777)

It is just as plausible to say that Watergate was a Democrat plot to make Nixon look bad.

Everyone here needs to read my journal [slashdot.org]

Re:To everyone saying this was Rove's plot (4, Funny)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 9 years ago | (#10411059)

It is just as plausible to say that Watergate was a Democrat plot to make Nixon look bad.

To cover his tracks, one of the Democrats involved (G Gordon Liddy) served five years in prison on charges of conspiracy, burglary, and illegal wiretapping before his 20 year sentence was commuted by President Carter- who, it turns out, just happened to be a Democrat. Coincidence? You decide. Then to make extra sure nobody was onto him, he became a conservative talk show host and pretended not to be a Democrat for years and years. This guy continues to cover up his sabotage of Nixon's reelection campaign to this very day. There is no depth to which these people will not sink.

72-Hour Plan? (2)

RealProgrammer (723725) | more than 9 years ago | (#10411383)

The two sides are both so cynical I am ready to ignore them both and write in Pete Rose [yahoo.com]. If they'd each quit pandering to the other's base for a minute, they'd quickly understand how simple it is:

What the Republicans need to do is quit trying to look liberal, and instead convince middle class subdivisionites that George Bush is God's Own Candidate. They'll turn out in droves.

What the Democrats need to do is quit trying to look like anti-war-but-tough-on-terror hawks, and instead convince undecided voters that John Kerry has a firm position on some issue. They already know he isn't George Bush; he can stop running on that now.

No, the two sides keep hitting their talking points and strategizing about getting out the vote of this or that demographic.

I think I'll turn my attention to something important. Don't they know there's a pennant race [yahoo.com] going on?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...