Servergate: Senate Republicans access secret Dem memos

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1738&e=3&u=/zd/20040122/tc_zd/117189

According to the Boston Globe (www.boston.com), Republican staff members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee exploited a security hole in the committee’s servers for at least a year to access and share secret Democratic memos.

The security breach has drawn the attention of the office of the Senate Sergeant of Arms, which has launched an investigation into how portions of 15 strategy memos ended up in conservative media outlets, The Globe reported on Thursday. Computer experts from General Dynamics Corp. and the U.S. Secret Service are helping in the investigation, in which about 120 people have been interviewed and a half dozen computers have been seized, according to the article.

GOP staffers were able to access Democratic files because of a glitch dating back to 2001, when a computer technician’s mistake left files on a shared committee server accessible without a password, The Globe reported.

The ethical thing to do would have been to report the oversight and have it fixed. But the Republican mission of world domination is too important… :roll:

I hope they seized the computers of all the Republicans and their staff and sit on them for months.

I read about this yesterday. Isn’t it curious that it hasn’t hit ANY of the major Web news outlets yet…

Actually, it was on almost all news sites - I read about it on Fox, MSNBC, CNN, and even Drudge - as a matter of fact, the first place I saw it was Drudge (for a site that is considered conservative, that site highlites a lot of Republican critical articles.) Perhaps you just missed by looking today - it was on most sites yesterday.

And I doubt Democrats would have taken the high road on this one any more than Republicans did - both sides are pretty “win at all costs”. Sadly.

I don’t think of Drudge as conservative, more… controversial. They like to stir the shit.

I think Drudge is highly overrated in terms of - well, just about everything. Conservative schill? They post headlines that are critical of all sides. Controversial? All the guy typically does in a day is post headlines from news sources around the world. There is very little “original” stuff there - most of the time it’s a poor man’s GoogleNews.

You’re huffing glue if you think Drudge is critical of all sides, dude. He’s directly tied into the GOP blast-fax recycling machine.

He covers GOP scandals a full news cycle after someone else gets to them.

All I can go on is what I read. Example: Drudge was reporting the Republican’s getting into the Democratic files before I saw it on the CNN site. Let me go look now…

First article I see: Ex-US Arms Hunter Kay says no Stockpiles in Iraq. Hardly sounds like a GOP planted story. Just in the last couple of days that’s two stories critical of the Republicans. There’s also a story linked where Clark blames Fox News and Republican bias for his showing in the debates.

Like I said, I often see stories that criticise the Republicans on Drudge before I see them elsewhere, and almost always at the same time. And I see articles critical of the Dems in the same pattern. I read Drudge every day when I do my news scan (about 24 news sites, US and foreign.) Is he a conservative? Yeah, I think he is. But it’s bogus to say he doesn’t post stories critical of the Republicans or that he holds them until they’re old news.

He went like 4 or 5 days before putting up anything about Trent Lott’s line about Thurmond.

Eh. The “oh yeah, well, you haven’t said that Hitler was a bad person lately, Hitler-lover!” attack is a little weak.

I think leaving at “Drudge is a poor journalist that misrepresents facts with a stupid hat and website design skills from 1998” is enough.

True, but do you think it’s coincidental his media strategy is coordinated with the GOP? Last summer he ran virtually the same headlines as Rush when they were going after Kerry’s hair, that Kerry looked French, etc., etc.

Well, actually, that’s backwards - Limbaugh was reading stuff off of Drudge. And Leno was making Kerry hair jokes, and Kerry rich guy trying to look middle class jokes, etc. Not everyone who grabs a common theme is getting faxes from the GOP. If Drudge was “run” by the GOP he wouldn’t be running the headlines that he runs that make the GOP look bad. If so he wouldn’t be one of the first to run stories like the recent Rep reading all of the open Dem files, etc. In fact, he wouldn’t run any GOP critical stories - there are websites that ARE pure GOP friendly websites, and they absolutely don’t run stories like the recent computer/GOP issue and the statements yesterday by the head weapons hunter.

He’s a lucky hack who has some sources and links a lot of other sites. He’s absolutely conservative in his personal politics. But he breaks and posts stories critical of both parties. Is he the best source of news? Absolutely not. But he sometimes is the first to post stories, which is why he’s a good stop if you’re browsing a couple of dozen news headline sites a day. Sometimes those stories are critical of Dems; Sometimes of Reps. But you can’t pick one example that makes your point and ignore the ones that don’t. I’m sure he’s more sympathetic to the GOP, but as long as I see an occasional story there before I find it elsewhere, I don’t care. I’m old enough to make judgements on how much weight to put on news stories, consider the source, etc. After all, the recent stories on news people and their donations to each party makes a case that most news media folks are Democrats: almost everyone on whom they had data gave contributions to the Democratic party (the one exception I recall was the money guy at Fox, Neil Cavuto, who made a contribution to the GOP.) Should I take that data to say that ABC, CNN, etc. are all skewing their news to the Democrats (a lot of people do say that, and give examples, and believe that these revelations bolster their point of view.)

Personally, I find it a lot better to not be so focused on trying to label or demonize everything - read and listen to as much as possible, as many points of view as possible, and resolve from there. Not because I’ve got some angelic “above it all” POV - it’s just more enjoyable to me to read as many points of view as possible. Sometimes someone I normally completely disagree with makes a really good point. I listened to O’Reilly in the car yesterday and he told a black caller that called to say that Republicans made no attempt to reach out to the African-American community that the power and leadership of the Republican party were basically rich white men from backgrounds in which they were never exposed to the black community and were thus very uncomfortable with that community. And thus they were scared to say or do anything because they knew they’d screw up; they’re politicians and don’t want to publically screw up. He commented that Cheney was brought up in a state and a part of a state where he probably never even saw a black person, much less spent time in a black community. His point was that Republicans DO blow off the black community, not so much because they didn’t care but because they were both clueless and intimidated due to their ignorance.

Nothing profound, but it was interesting. And that’s what I’m looking for, things that make me think. I can get that from Carville, O’Reilly, Molly Ivans, Will, etc. And I’d miss a lot if I decided that a major chunk of people were “bad guys” and thus summarily dismissed them. (Long ramble - sorry, up all night and tired. ;) )

Drudge has a picture of Clark update today with the capition “ECLAIR AND CROISSANT FOR LUNCH.”

I agree that it’s useful to examine news sources you disagree with, but Drudge isn’t a “news source.” He’s some hack with a webpage who puts up every rumor he gets without checking them, takes money from crackpots like Scaife, and is totally wired into the GOP spin machine. Read David Brock’s book; it’s all in there.

That’s a direct link and caption from Yahoo News, which in turn is off Reuters. Unless those guys are in cahoots with the GOP, that’s hardly a direct feed from the Republican machine.

And the highlighted story, featured in bright red, is Kerry leads Bush in a heads-up match: the headline is “52% of the voters don’t want to see Bush re-elected”. Is that also a feed from the GOP spin machine? Get real, Jason, take off the filtered glasses. What kind of Republican schill site is going to highlite a story like that? I don’t need to read a book to see what’s on the site. Heck, the news you posted today on David Kay saying he thinks there was no weapons program after first Gulf War was the highlighted article on Drudge three days ago.

Look here, Drudge’s political leanings are no more a secret than Bill “They’re all out to get me!” O’Reilly. They both put on something critical of their party now and then in a hopeless attempt to appear impartial.

Plus they throw their crewmembers into the reactor to gain starship energy. Oh wait, that’s the Druuge.

  • Alan

Plus they throw their crewmembers into the reactor to gain starship energy. Oh wait, that’s the Druuge.

  • Alan[/quote]

Their giant cannons rock, though.

That’s a direct link and caption from Yahoo News, which in turn is off Reuters. Unless those guys are in cahoots with the GOP, that’s hardly a direct feed from the Republican machine.

And the highlighted story, featured in bright red, is Kerry leads Bush in a heads-up match: the headline is “52% of the voters don’t want to see Bush re-elected”. Is that also a feed from the GOP spin machine? Get real, Jason, take off the filtered glasses. What kind of Republican schill site is going to highlite a story like that? I don’t need to read a book to see what’s on the site. Heck, the news you posted today on David Kay saying he thinks there was no weapons program after first Gulf War was the highlighted article on Drudge three days ago.[/quote]

A site that knows no one will read it if it doesn’t even pretend to be impartial? Fox news also runs stories critical of the GOP, yet no one thinks they’re even remotely impartial.

Ah - how tricky! Let’s run articles critical of both sides, including breaking stories critical of both sides, then people will be fooled and not know that the only stories we really like are the ones that are critical of THEIR side! Genius! LOL!

I KNOW Drudge is conservative - I don’t care. I read the story on Kay Clark’s opinion that there were no WMDs on Drudge before I saw it on any other site - 3 days before the source you quoted on here - thus I got something I was interested in. I haven’t seen the link to the story that “52% of Americans don’t want the president re-elected” on CNN or MSNBC or some other sites that I perused this afternoon (it may be there now) but I saw it on Drudge’s site (it’s a link to a Newsweek story) and it was highlighted. I said the guy’s a hack, who runs a page that basically has about 10 - 15 links to newstories on it, but I think you are making him out to be far more than he is. Jason, you read and quote sources all of the time that aren’t impartial, that are obviously liberal. That doesn’t mean they are in the pocket of the Dems (although I have THAT discussion on other boards.)

I wish I had my copy of Brock’s book here; trust me, he’s totally wired in. And you didn’t answer the question - Fox runs breaking news that bad about the President too. It’s all about emphasis.

All I’m saying is that he’s scum, and you shouldn’t believe a word he says. Remember Clinton’s black baby?