Obama going down. Fast.

Discussion in 'The ARRSE Hole' started by Devil_Dog, Mar 21, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/20/obama.passport/index.html

    Next thing you know, "they" will find out that old boy spent a few months in an Al Qaeda training camp.

    Can't put it past them.
  2. I suppose one could argue that a man who's standing for the highest office in the land should be happy for anything in his past to bhe scrutinised. As is so often stated in the press ,and on ARRSE , "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about". Perhaps the files on all candidates should be opened up for public scrutiny.
  3. It was that Harpee of strict sex - Condaleeza Rice... and she has apologised - Just on SKY NEWS.
  4. So it DIDN'T happen to Clinton and McCain as well - despite what News24 said.

    I was also under the impression that Rice was apologising on behalf of the government and not because politicians in the Whitehouse were responsible.

    From the Beeb

  5. You can hold whatever impression you choose, as ever. Rational analysis defeats you every time, and you never show the slightest sign of arriving at your own position through any kind of reasoning.

    Those of us in the real world are looking at this and wondering about the climate that has been created under the current administration, which:

    a) Encourages underlings to think behaving like this is proper, and;
    b) Allows the elected to shrug and walk away as though the behaviour of its underlings had nothing to do with them.

    The first is a failure of leadership, the second a failure of accountability.
    The first is the kind of thing Saddam would have approved of - laughing at the thought of accountability.

    David Irving has been a lifetime defending Hitler on the basis that 'he did not order the Holocaust - if there were killings, it was underlings acting unbidden'. Palpable nonsense.

    That a supposed liberal - democrat (lower case in both) should be defending this kind of intrusion is absurd.
  6. That all depends on who's doing the checking. Obama would have gone through an FBI vetting process akin to the British DV when he was picked for the Foreign Affairs and Homeland Security Committees.
  7. Stonker - I don't think You lived in the real world since before You resigned Your commission :roll:
  8. I suppose one could argue that a man who's standing for the highest office in the land

    He isnt he ranks about 3rd behind the pope, David Bowie and Pete Townsend
  9. Profound as ever. 8)

    I'll take the attempt at insult as an admission that your position is not one that can be explained, let alone defended, by resort to logic. :sunny:
  10. With the hindsight of now! They have all been looked at and they are not Polish, so FFS shut up, its yet another dead issue in the race for whatever............
  11. Bush dodged the draft and continues to get away with acting and speaking like an idiot, but got away with it. It's a strange country. Obama will come up smelling of roses like Teflon Tony and will be the next president. Hillary Clinton will fade into obscurity quite soon.
  12. About as profound as Your post Stonks. One insult deserves a ripost.

    Do You have any proof that Your profound insight is a true reflection of Whitehouse policy. Just because Your jaded and cynical mind wishes it to be so does not make it that way.

    There may well be some shinanigins in this story - but it is much more likely to be the party (Democrat or Republican) rather than the government at fault. Two civil servants were had up for this - is Bush or one of His minions going to waste time and resources over this? :roll:
  13. This is from the NYTimes:

    Passport Files of 3 Candidates Were Improperly Viewed

    Article Tools Sponsored By
    Published: March 21, 2008

    WASHINGTON — The State Department said on Friday that it was investigating several incidents in which the passport files of all three presidential contenders were improperly accessed by employees.

    The breaches involved electronic files that contained personal information about Senators Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain. A State Department spokesman declined to say what was in those files, but he said they were likely to contain biographical information and passport applications.

    Mr. Obama’s passport file was breached on three separate occasions earlier this year and as recently as last week, by three employees working for independent contractors who did not have authorization to access the information. The breaches occurred on Jan. 9, Feb. 21, and March 14, according to The Associated Press.

    The State Department’s computer system had flagged each incident, but senior department officials were not informed until they looked into the matter, after receiving inquiries from a reporter on Thursday, a department spokesman said. “That information didn’t rise up to senior management levels,” the spokesman, Sean McCormack, said at a Friday news conference. “That should have happened.”

    Two of the employees were fired, Mr. McCormack said. The Associated Press reported that they had worked for Stanley, Inc., a company that provides administrative support and services to government groups and is based in Arlington, Va. Stanley signed a five-year, $570 million contract with the State Department earlier this week to work on the department’s passport database.

    The third employee also accessed Mr. McCain’s file, but was only reprimanded and remains employed.

    Mr. McCormack speculated that “imprudent curiosity” had motivated the employees’ actions. “That is our initial take on the matter,” Mr. McCormack said in a hastily arranged conference call on Thursday night, after The Washington Times published a report about the incident involving Mr. Obama.

    “We are not being dismissive of any other possibility,” Mr. McCormack quickly added. But at Friday’s news conference, he appeared to take umbrage at the suggestion that the breach was an instance of political foul play.

    One reporter, Lambros Papantoniou of the Greek daily newspaper Eleftheros Typos, asked a question and noted in passing that “the whole story looks like a new Watergate scandal.”

    Mr. McCormack interrupted. “You know what? You know what? That is so outrageous,” he said. “You just lost your privilege.” Mr. McCormack refused to acknowledge the reporter for the remainder of the news conference.

    So far in their investigation, State Department officials have not found additional breaches of files belonging to the presidential candidates who are no longer running. “If they come across any other incidents, of course, they are going to report those,” Mr. McCormack said.

    Mrs. Clinton’s passport file was breached last summer during a training session for State Department employees. A trainee was encouraged to enter a family member’s name into the passport database for training purposes, Mr. McCormack said. Instead, the trainee entered Mrs. Clinton’s name. Mr. McCormack said the trainee was promptly admonished.

    Earlier on Friday, before the breaches of the files of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain were disclosed, Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, said she personally apologized to Mr. Obama. “I told him that I was sorry and I told him that I myself would be very disturbed if I learned that somebody had looked into my passport file,” she said.

    Mr. McCormack, the spokesman, said that Ms. Rice also apologized to Mrs. Clinton, and was planning to speak to Mr. McCain later in the day.

    In a statement issued by his campaign, Mr. McCain called on the government to respect its citizens’ privacy. “It appears that privacy was breached, and I expect a thorough review and a change in procedures as necessary to ensure the privacy of all passport files,” he said.

    Mr. Obama, speaking to reporters in Oregon on Friday, said he appreciated Ms. Rice’s apology. But he called for the passport situation “to be investigated diligently and openly,” preferably by a Congressional committee “so that it is not simply an internal matter.”

    “One of the things that the American people count on in their interactions with any level of government is that if they have to disclose personal information, that is going to stay personal and stay private,” Mr. Obama said. “And when you have not just one, but a series of attempts to tap into people’s personal records, that’s a problem, not just for me, but for how our government is functioning.”

    Howard L. Berman, a California Democrat who is the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, issued a statement on Friday that his committee would also look into the breaches.

    Mr. Berman compared the incidents to a similar breach in 1992 involving a State Department file on then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton, which occurred amid rumors that Mr. Clinton had tried to renounce his citizenship to avoid the draft while he was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford during the Vietnam War.

    The 1992 incident, Mr. Berman said, “also was characterized as isolated and nonpolitical when the news initially emerged. This time, as then, Congress will pay close attention to the depth of executive branch involvement in the rifling of presidential candidates’ passport files.”

  14. 1. No they prob'ly won't spend timeor effort on it. That is part of the problem.
    2. They were not 'civil servants' - the concept is alien to the American system: they were contractors.
    3. When the US changes its administration, unlike the UK where the civil service simply tidies the new PM's office and carries on as though nothing had happened - in the US all the head honchos change, and much of the middle management, amid much stalling from the other party.

    Point is that the machinery of gunmint in the US is at best:
    a) More partisan than in the UK - because it's seniors are appointed by the incumbents, and
    b) Less accountable than it should be - because it employs outsourced contractors, whose actions are 'plausibly deniable'

    Of course, if you think that how it is, is how it should be - that's fine. You called me cynical. What adjective do you apply to your own view of the world?

    You asked for 'proof' that my 'profound insight is a true reflection of Whitehouse policy'.

    I'm sure you won't find a written policy that says we'll do this kind of thing. Rather in the same way that there was never a formal, written policy of genocide
    in Nazi Germany. Absence of written orders was no obstacle to the crime of genocide, yet it is obvious that the crime was energetically pursued in its absence, by every organ of theNazi German state, with the collusion of its citizens.

    You might want to look also at the way in which the good citizensof the Good Ol' US of A responded when a bloke called McCarthy decided to makea name for himslef, by labelling people he didn't like as 'Commies'.

    So I'm left wonderingwhy should the absence of a documented policy of intrusion be an obstacle to recognising that the habitual invasion of privacy, by those in the pay of the gunmint, is A Bad Thing That Happens But Should Not?

    Different administrations(our own included) behave according to different codes of conduct. The Shrub's sets particularly low standards - to which these minions have conformed - and neither he nor they should be defended for it.

    You need to ask yourself if that is what the founding fathers had in mind for the world's most powerful democracy.

    I look forward to your reasoned response, with its accompanying outline of your own views on the principles of individual privacy, and the duty of government to respect and protect it.
  15. Stonker

    Reference the quote You used of my post - You mistook its meaning. I didn't mean what was Bush et al going to do about the two 'contractors' (I would give them the name functionaries which is what I meant by CS), rather I meant why would they delve into the passport files of the three when they can access the information using the sneaky beakies.

    This was much more likely some Journo or Party worker paying a trainee to dig the dirt.

    As to the rest of Your post - there is no need to clutter up the thread with what I think in that regard as it has little to do with the subject at hand.