Software

White House recycles backup tapes and loses millions of e-mails

According to a recent news story, the White House recycled backup computer tapes of e-mail before October 2003, and so some e-mail threads may no longer exist.

In some of the biggest news yet for 2008, the White House has decided to go green. That's right, folks, the White House is recycling its backup computer tapes of e-mail before October 2003, which means some e-mail threads have been completely overwritten.

An excerpt from TechNewsWorld | AP:

The White House has acknowledged recycling its backup computer tapes of e-mail before October 2003, raising the possibility that many electronic messages -- including those pertaining to the CIA leak case -- have been taped over and are gone forever.

The disclosure came minutes before midnight Tuesday under a court-ordered deadline that forced the White House to reveal information it has previously refused to provide.

Theresa Payton, chief information officer for the White House Office of Administration, says that her staff is continuing an effort to retrieve preserved copies of these e-mails in the system archives.

Payton's sworn statement was filed in response to a federal court order last week in lawsuits by two private groups, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the National Security Archive.

The lawsuits allege that millions of e-mails are missing from White House servers. The recycling of backup tapes leaves doubt whether any missing e-mails will be recoverable.

Let's get real here. Everyone makes mistakes. That's part of being human, right? Of course, some people don't think this mishap was an accident at all.

"It appears that the White House has now destroyed the evidence of its misconduct," said Anne Weismann, the chief counsel for the ethics group.

According to the article, "If the e-mails were not saved, the White House might have violated two laws requiring preservation of documents that fall into the categories of federal records or presidential records."

Do you think these missing e-mails were intentionally copied over? If the White House is found guilty, who do you think will (or should) take the rap?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stay on top of the latest tech news

Get this news story and many more by subscribing to our free IT News Digest newsletter, delivered each weekday. Automatically sign up today!

About

Sonja Thompson has worked for TechRepublic since October of 1999. She is currently a Senior Editor and the host of the Smartphones and Tablets blogs.

191 comments
melekali
melekali

The buck stops at the top. You figure out the rest.

AV .
AV .

I'm responsible for backups at my company, a law firm, and do recycle tapes according to company policy, but we use archiving for important cases. I would think all emails pertaining to the CIA leak case should have been preserved indefinitely. The Executive branch of the Bush Administration has many secrets. I think overwriting the tapes is no mistake and that all roads lead back to Dick Cheney. This incident and others like it, should be vigorously investigated, but I have no doubt that Cheney will never be charged with any crime. Someone else will take the fall, much like Scooter Libby. AV

etkinsd
etkinsd

Misleading, misrepresentation, propaganda, and information operations. The Whitehouse probably doesn't even use a tape archive system, and this information is being put out to mislead the public -- i.e. propaganda to mislead folks into believing information does not exist, when it does.

tonoohay
tonoohay

It is amazing how the government has laws for the retention and protection of business communications on the books (SOX Sarbanes-Oxley one example) with very serious consequences to those failing to heed. And yet we now have a parallel to the infamous 18.5 minute gap found during the Nixon era crime spree. It is just a carefully placed mistake and will help coverup what has become the only time in modern history a covert intel operative was outed by her own exceutive branch of the US government.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

First they complain that Bush isn't "green" enough, and when the White House finally make some effort at recycling, the liberals get all bent out of shape. There's just no making some people happy.

cmyschuk
cmyschuk

As a Canadian with no (American) political agenda, anytime ANY entity and ESPECIALLY any government uses such lame excuses for not preserving data and/or email, not only the actual perpetrators but their bosses up the line should be accountable for disciplinary and/or legal action. To the TOP. As an keen observer of American Politics for many years, I know any opinion I (any) have will be spun by both Democratic or Republican fanatics, but this is such an obvious criminal activity. But to be fair, there should be some additional questions asked - 1. What IS the retention policy for email in the White House? 2. Has there been other "recycling" events in past administrations? 3. Why hasn't a non-destructive data/email policy been followed or put into place? Does anyone see the absolute IRONY of this - living in an era of government waste (IRAQ, earmarks, et al), yet the only thing your government is recycling is historical facts (and potentially legal evidence)? PS. I cannot say that the Canadian Government is any better, we just haven't caught them (yet) at such an obvious illegal activity

fbrusca
fbrusca

Kirchner (Argentine) make the Clintons and Bush looks like Fran Fine at "The Nanny"

Randall
Randall

Heck no! Our company recycle roughly every 6 months. so in this case and after nearly 5 years, if there was something important you should have found it by now. I'm sure that the email is gleened over for problems or inappropraite behavior. And if that isn't being done, then don't blame IT!

bchirgwin
bchirgwin

. Being green is one thing, but the concept of reusing backup tapes is a bad idea tape life isn't long. These tapes have data from 2003 and probably purchase in 2002 or earlier. Was losing the 2003 data the goal or is it losing 2007/2009 data by not being able to restore it by using tapes past there life span? So using 6 year old tapes for backups. Good plan... . If I did this I would not get away with "It was a mistake". If in my job I'd be fired. If data lost in a lawsuit, I'd pay with jail time. . I am sure more than one backup exists. Backups should be done daily. All tapes have been overwritten? . Can't the FBI uncover data that has been overwritten. Theory has it there is technology to recover data on hard drives that has been overwritten a few times. I assume tapes are the same. (DOD standard is to overwrite a hard drive 7 times. Must be a reason for this). So could the data be recovered or is the DOD wasting time?

alieninvader
alieninvader

...Plausible Deniability Get rid of the evidence and recourse becomes difficult. Back in the early '70s, there was a certain eighteen minute gap... But seriously now - if a $billion per day can be spent on the occupation in the middle east, can't there be a couple hundred bucks a day for backup? Are we expected to believe it was just a coincidence that the Admin waited until minutes before midnight on the date of deadline? And by the way, the White House doesn't lose or recycle tapes. It's the occupants. PS - the RNC should be subpoena'ed for the tapes of its email backups, since it has come to light that much of the internal communications in the Admin went through RNC servers.

lafeyette_management
lafeyette_management

Deliberate. How hard (or expensive) is it to get new tapes? In addition, my best experience is that tapes have a rather limited shelf-life and usage life. I try to avoid using any given backup tape more than about 20 times, and I try to avoid using tapes that are more than a few years old for anything other than 'cold storage archives'. The point is that tapes that stopped being used in 2003 were probably in use for at least a year, maybe several, before that, and they were probalby taken out of rotation after having been used a lot, possibly either to protect what was on them, or to avoid using an old, and worn out tape, possibly resulting in a failed backup. Furthermore, tapes made before 2003 probably came in a maximum capacity of about 70 to 80 GB, almost certainly not much more than 120. Modern tapes easily hold something like 600 GB or more. A decision to 'recycle' such old tapes leads to the idea that the White House doing one of two things: 1. They are trying to continue the use of very old tape drives dating from almost certainly well before 2003, as well as continuing the use of tapes that have almost certainly outlived their usefulness as stable media for regular, routine backup operations, rather than investing in newer, more reliable, higher speed/higher capacity drives --or-- They are actually trying to destroy incriminating data and trying to cover up this act by claiming that they are recycling the old tape media rather than spending all of maybe $60.00 per tape cartridge and maybe a couple of thousand for a high-end tape drive. When taking into consideration the man-hours and time involved backing up to eight or ten 70 GB tape cartridges, and keeping/cleaning an old, vintage 2002 or 2003 (or probably much older) tape drive(s) running versus the speed and facility of writing to a single 600 GB cartridge with a modern high-speed tape drive, this hardly seems to be any kind of act of economy or 'green'-thinking. Clearly, the former action is irresponsible at best--future data will hardly be protected using such old and worn media and storage devices, while the latter action is pretty obviously nothing less than treason and betrayal of the trust of the American people.

Stuey_C
Stuey_C

Probably not deliberate, George W isn't that smart!!! Blame it on him, I'll take any excuse to get rid of that moron.

Sonja Thompson
Sonja Thompson

According to a recent news story, the White House recycled backup computer tapes of e-mail before October 2003, and so some e-mail threads may no longer exist. Do you think these missing e-mails were intentionally copied over? If the White House is found guilty, who do you think will (or should) take the rap?

Absolutely
Absolutely

The notorious plausibility of "we just fouled up -- again" would be hard for prosecutors to overcome. I hope they try.

PsiFiScout
PsiFiScout

The PRA and GRA have no punitive articles so even if they were violated the worst punishment by law is a warning to not do it again. On the other hand the Speaker of the House has violated the Logan act punishable by a 10 year prison stint, but no one seems too eager to push that treasonous wench.

PsiFiScout
PsiFiScout

The PRA and GRA have no punitive articles so even if they were violated the worst punishment by law is a warning to no do it again. On the other hand the Speaker of the House has violated the Logan act punishable by a 10 year prison stint, but no one seems too eager to push that treasonous wench.

one_smart_girl
one_smart_girl

This is beyond impeachment, just charge, convict and send Bush and Chaney to prison the minute they get ort of office.

IC-IT
IC-IT

That was a stretch of logic to make your statement. Law to protect/save data = OK to recycle because it's a green thing. Wrong answer. Liberal issue? Since when is protecting the data only a liberal issue?

Popoyd
Popoyd

The thing is that this is not a company. They ares supposed to keep everything until and even after the presidential term. Auditability.

PsiFiScout
PsiFiScout

After reviewing several of the news reports on this, something seems to be missing. The reports discuss missing days and weeks, but I have found no discussion of "how" they were missing. Was it complete tapes or series of tapes that are absent? Or are there tapes that are partially erased? I have only been able to find reports of missing time periods but no specifics on the nature of the missing parts. If there are partially erased tapes, forensics can determine if they are erasures or just flawed media. If entire tapes are missing, were they reused or was there documetation showing where they went. There are too many unanswered questions here to make any kind of educated evaluation.

jmarkovic32
jmarkovic32

Sandy Berger would have probably stuffed the tapes down his pants or in his socks. Liberals seem to conveniently forget all the corrpution that happened during the last administration. It's amazing how anything on the Internet that is government related gets turned into a "Bush sucks!" bashfest. They're politicians. They're all corrupt.

iam
iam

the difference between a harware/software failure and re-using a backup tape?

#1 Kenster
#1 Kenster

Yes, I think they purposely destroyed evidence.

Nori Sarel
Nori Sarel

You guys are all hilarious... Comparing Bush and Clinton is funny to the extreme. It seems like so many people think Clinton was a angel, but what they conveniently forget is that he was impeached... One of the only two presidents that this happened to. And somehow Bush is the worse of the two because he choose to defend our country and go after terrorists? What are you smoking? Also even though WMDs were not found in Iraq isn't the chance that a country like Iraq, that is not exactly friendly to the USA, has WMDs enough to take action? And what do you expect a ethical country/government to do? Invade and depose the government of a country and then high tail it out of their? Or stick around long enough to establish a new government? Many of you forget this country almost unanimously supported invading Iraq in the first place.... Boy aren't we a fickle people...

seckel109
seckel109

Hmmmmm. Lets see we have an administration who has lied, cheated, and stolen from the american people for 8 years. Now, like the remnants of the WTC, they're starting to cover they're tracks. So,...to sum up, they've lied, cheated, stolen, and, by using the patriotism of the american people to futher they're own ends, commited the worst form of treason. The sad part of this whole thing is that the american public has been dumbed down so much they'll probably pardon the whole lot.

Dr_Zinj
Dr_Zinj

The law is very clear. The White House is supposed to be the number one enforcer of the laws of this country. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, failure to follow the law by the White House is automatically a willful act. Lack of funds or lack of personnel is not an issue; the White House has carte blanche for both. Hiring of an incompetent by the White House for any job of national importance (and all of the jobs there are of national importance) is automatically proof of misconduct by the White House. White House personnel, from the President down to the shoeshine guy in the sub-basement, must be held to the highest levels of responsibility, not the lowest. There are no excuses, only reasons for choosing to do, or not do. And choosing to not do is willful obstruction of justice.

hkjjr
hkjjr

First of all, I don't like the idea of using a technical forum for launching yet another political FLAMECAST, however I do admit that it is an important issue. As there is supposed ot be a balance between the three branches of government, there needs to be an independent body that is responsible for keeping records (electronic or otherwise) that cannot be abbrogated by any one branch. I would suggest the GAO, but I'm not sure how independent that is.

PsiFiScout
PsiFiScout

To answer the questions...pointedly. Do you think these missing e-mails were intentionally copied over? ANSWER: Possibly, it has been known to happen, especially if there was nothing of perceived, high levels of interest on the tapes, but, if charges are brought, then an investigation may reveal what happened. There may be guilt or it may have simply been a mistake. But for the administrations political opponents, any result other than "Bush Lied" and "Impeachment" will be unacceptable. If the White House is found guilty, who do you think will (or should) take the rap? ANSWER: Again back to investigation, if Bush ordered the destruction, then he should be prosecuted for the violation. If the IT guy simply screwed up then corrective action is dictated. However, since there was no current investigation involving the data on the tapes, there are no grounds for an Obstruction of Justice charge, only a charge of "Violating either the Presidential Records Act of 1978, or the Federal Records Act of 1950 would be in order. Neither the PRA 1978, or the FRA 1950, carry any punitive articles, so in a "Worst Case Scenario" for Bush, if prosecuted he could get told "Don't do that again" Looking into the case, I see good ol' Henry Waxman panning for the cameras once again, which indicates a high likelihood of a witch hunt in progress.

brownln
brownln

With the amount of Money this administration and our government wastes how am I supposed to believe they recycled tapes that were supposed to be saved? This reminds me of the accidential erasure of the tapes during the Nixon years. Once again history copies its self LB

khillen
khillen

Where to begin... First lets address the issue of the tapes being erased. If the administration was trying to hide information according to most of the post they could have just passed a law ?stating that the information contained on the tapes were a matter of national security and protected the information from being viewed and discussed.? They do have the power to do that ? and no one could have done anything about it until the time period had elapsed. The administration is not as idiotic as the great unwashed would like everyone to believe. You know, they way they did with the Kennedy assassination and the communications from the Japan empire during WWII. (Just to mention the 2 of the most known issues. Does the public really know what happened then even now?) Do I think that what happened should be shoved under a carpet and forgotten, No, but neither do I believe is should cost the taxpayers millions of dollars for an investigation. (Nor do I think that they should have taken Clinton to the carpet for an his liaison, especially since there where so many other crimes that should have been investigated, the actually accusations of rape, selling of national security information, shredding of documents that were subpoena, corporate theft, and I could go on). The IT Department Head should be the one handling the issue his/her staff. Should the President take some responsibility, Yes, to make sure what the policy is, change it, if it needs changing and to make sure that this does not happen again. The second point, how this topic evolved into the UN and our military is to illustrate again how some people love to misdirect issues. Many men and women sacrificed and died so America was a free and sovereign nation. Not to be govern or dictated to from any outside influence. ?Government for the people and by the people?- why then do we need the interference of the UN to set our policies and guide our actions. Incase you do not know this yet- the UN wants a world government, were they are in control. To spell it out plainly- The rights and privileges that we share as Americans will be GONE. It will not be better, they will be accountable to no one. When is the last time you (or any other nation) voted in their UN representative?? Before people start taken what the UN is spouting they really need to do some independent research on what is really happening, and just listen to the typical media spin. The media has its own agenda. And talk about corruption in the UN - I could go on for pages.. Last but not least ? our military. First let me send my heart felt thanks and appreciation to all the men and women who have served in the military. ( And their Families for raising them and the sacrifices that they have endured). As one ?poster? commented about all the innocent lives that have been lost, i.e. women and children. That they have nothing to do with this? Well lets have a brief history lesson. Women have played an important part in many wars and are not as innocent as that poster would like you to believe. They also have used themselves as explosive devices to kill. Remember Vietnam and Korea. They would approach our soldiers, who was not expecting them to be an enemy and they died. And unfortunately the children are not as innocent as we Americans would like to believe. Children are to be playing with toys and such. And I hope that is what American children are doing, however there are children that by the age of 4 have mastered throwing grenades, firing assault weapons and indoctrinate with the ideas that make them hate, and want to use their bodies as weapons. Before anyone has the misconception that I just like to spout off and not put ?my money wear my mouth is? let me inform you that my child served in Iraq. Did I want him there in harms way? What are you nuts, of course I did not. But I also did not want to ever again witness what I did on the morning in September. The plane that crashed in the Pennsylvania field flew over my house. I just heard the report that all but one plane was accounted, for when the noise and shadow of the plane crossed over my home. Terror does not even begin to describe my feelings, you see my children were attending school ? it sits all by itself on top of hill in the open? want to talk about the innocent???

murillorobert
murillorobert

One question to ask is: What those emails contained? It is reasonable to think that those emails probably were incriminating and being this year elections year is also reasonable to think that the Republicans in the White House are planning something similar to what happened in Florida with the electoral ballots ... It is clear to me that Republicans do anything crooked in order to win the next elections and so the destruction of emails will probably has something to do with that. Note: I am not a Democrat or Republican but I can see the hand writing on the wall!

donaldcoe
donaldcoe

Having in the worked for the US Government for more that than 36 years. Communications storage procedures have always been a precise issue of exactly what to dispose of and when it?s official expiration date would be enacted upon. Many years before the advent of the computer workstation and the program of Outlook, there was the IBM Selectric typewriter and the rims of carbon sheet paper used to create that ?carbon original? commonly referred as ?carbon copy? by inserting one sheet between two pieces of paper. Just imagine how much warehousing space was required to store the official record and audit trail. In the last 10 to 12 years or so, (Microsoft Outlook) email has come of age as the primary trans-media communications method for governments and businesses alike for the massive reduction of warehousing space requirement and it?s digital storage compressed footprint. Any lame brain knowing how Outlook?s personal folder (pst) system works if it is important it will be achieved and saved. How many employees? have come and gone doing that sensitive or non-sensitive job where both trivial emails and critical mail is encompassed. Knowing the trouble it takes to extract an individual email with all this paranoia surrounding a Watergate type mishap repeating itself on an email lost. I trust NO President or lowly database administrator would dare touch it without armor plating his A##. So, when I read this article I knew it was bogus, for the backups are so redundant and secure not even the Big P (Bush) or the VP could undo.

lew913
lew913

How long do you think docs should be kept?? How long have past White House people kept docs? Lets stop playing the gotcha game and work together to save our country.

captainbley
captainbley

Truman once said "The buck stops here"

Vquest55
Vquest55

Have any other tapes been found erased from earlier years, I think not. It's sad but both sides will see it the way they want. I'm sorry but this President has brought us closer to '1984' more than ALL other Presidents combined. You folks need to look @ the bigger picture but unfortunately you don't. Well I hope for the best for all of us because it doesn't look too good. Take care.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

I'm not sure. Who will?, the person who can't pass the blame onto someone else!

spork
spork

I think it is a 99% chance that this was simply a human error. Anyone that has worked in a federal government environment for a long time would recognize the possibilities rather than assigning it to some diabolic plot. Note the reply from the CIO and compare it a clintonian response ? ?I forget?, ?I did not have anything to do with that?, ?I don?t know what you are talking about?, etc. However, I do have it on good authority that the room off the Oval Office, where Monica was servicing Clinton, has been turned into a world command center. There are levers, controls, and monitoring devices that enable President Bush or his assignees to control anything. For example, he can alter your electric bill, listen to anything you say in any vehicle whether it is your vehicle or not, and cause Windows to crash on command. A special set of mechanisms is available to summon any catastrophe from a car wreck up to and including worldwide famine. The more serious catastrophe controls require a special key that is possessed by the Speaker of the House.

kberner
kberner

Given this administration's obsession with secrecy, including a commitment to hide legitimate public information from the public, as well as its stunning record of utter imcompetence, who can possibly tell which was the cause of this travesty?

lloyd
lloyd

Who apporved this column? This is not a political website. I come here to read about technical issues in the computing world. Not some of the vile hatred being spewed toward The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the ex-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

d_g_l_s
d_g_l_s

that there have been no statues or memorials set up for critics! The best thing for us to do is become change-makers ourselves. This world desperately needs people who have integrity and courage to lead, not wine and gossip and try to decide if someone else did wrong. You have to change something if you're going to change something, not just talk about it and complain. Let's lead, first by our own examples and then by helping and encouraging others to do the same. Here's to leading by example and integrity!

ShortStock
ShortStock

It's good to know that MOST of the IT world has good sense. Bush has been like 8 years of a bad BOT and MALWARE infection

david
david

Maybe the reason they recycled the tapes awas because after too much time on the shelf the tapes become unreadable... Review what they were saying about tapes back in 2004... http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid5_gci951353,00.html So if you can reuse a tape 1000 times, shouldn't you backup data more than once to a tape? Why wouldn't you recycle a 4 year old tape? Did anyone check to see if they could still read the old media? Do they even have the tape drive to read the tapes with? How many 4 year old tape backup devices to you have around the office? Dave

JesseLee
JesseLee

No matter who started the policy someone will be setup to take the fall. Truthfully though, there are industry standards that allow for copying over records. BUT (in my opinion) there are situations, such as this one, where "industry standards" should not be practiced.

tnikodem
tnikodem

Hasn't any one else ever heard of generations and cycles of data :-) For decades it has been best practice to establish a cycle for backup tapes. It can be ridiculous to expect to use a new tape each day -- and even then someone could create then delete or overwrite data between backups. Elsewhere it is common practice to keep multiple generations at different time intervals. For example: 1. one each end of day for a week plus 2. one each end of week for a month plus 3. one each end of month for a year plus 4. one each end of year for a # of years. This would allow us to go back to the end of any day this week, the end of any week this month, etc. It would require only 7 days + 5 weeks + 12 months + x years of tapes. We could have snapshots at various points in the last seven years with only 7+5+12+7=31 tapes. Trying to keep daily backups would require 365*7=2555 tapes. What an ecological and financial waste to purchase AND STORE that many tapes just so someone could get back to August 30, 2003 instead of August 31, 2003!

ann.techrep
ann.techrep

Reminds me of the famous "18 minutes" of Nixon tapes. I would like to think it was only "human" error, but with all the "errors" of this administration, I can't.

HiCSQ
HiCSQ

Actually I tipped off Karl Rove on matters like this. When you discover some stupid inept mistake by government workers, and they will make them, do nothing. Make sure all your Machiavellian plans never touch official channels. Then whenever you need some cover, release the inept mistake and the media will go wild while you protect the "secret" channels. I told Karl it works every time. At least it did where I worked. The anti-whatever crowd will go wild and never ask if a plotting person would be so dumb as to leave tracks in "official" documents. The beauty is that the bureaucracy will defend itself to cover its ineptness with no help from you, the media and the anti crowd will rile away, and the secrets will remain secret.

navtec
navtec

The news pundits, politicos and interested parties at large have crowned our less than illustrious CIC the worlds most recognizable IDIOT... chalk this one up to the Chief also, but please don't waste much time & money prosecuting this one, if he's such an idiot there can't be much in all those emails worth the reading! Come to think of it, I didn't know George could spell... maybe he just uses emoticons? NavTec

gparsons
gparsons

Simple question, already answered by he whom is responsible.

mhbowman
mhbowman

after being in IT for over 15 years I can safely say that: 1) Most emails aren't even work related 2) Of those that are, the majority wouldn't be relevant after a week much less 4 years 3) Since it is the government it MAY be safe to assume that someone would be STUPID enough would discuss a crime or coverup in an email. How would you even BEGIN to sift through all of that? 4)In the unlikely event that the smoking gun is found they ALWAYS get off. Personally I'm of the belief that literally EVERYTHING does NOT need to be documented for all eternity.

jmarkovic32
jmarkovic32

Anyone who thinks the administration did this on purpose is probably a left-wing nutjob who blames the Bush Administration for everything. Let's get this straight: This is typical of any government agency. This is the same government that screwed up the Veterans Administration Hospital. This is the same government that screwed up the post-Katrina effort. This is typical government. "Bubububub it was in writing bubububub." So what?! FEMA had written procedures on how to respond to disasters, but beauracracy got in the way. The VA had written procedures on how to maintain a facility, but beauracracy got in the way. They had written procedures on backup retention and archiving procedures but BEAURACRACY GOT IN THE WAY. I can see the poor tech right now: "We need new Ultrium tapes!" "How much is it?" "$20,000" "That's way too much, just reuse the tapes." "Okay." C'mon, they're still using tapes as their main backup method for Chrissakes! Businesses are now moving to disk to disk as the primary method and only using tapes for offsite archiving. This is a classic case of gubment being gubment. And to think you folks want these ninkapoops in charge of your healthcare. LOL!

sboverie
sboverie

The White House operates by different laws. If the backup standards are applied to the WH reusing the backup tapes, then this may be sufficcient. A lot of businesses reuse their backup tapes, usually they have a full month's or more of tapes. The law as I understand it in this case specifies that all documents including electronic documents are to be preserved. This is to preserve information that may be vitally important in the future; as details of history or proof of criminal conduct. The question that we do not have enough information to properly judge is did the WH IT staff perform the backup properly and according to law. The other problem with the current adminisration is that they used an RNC email system that is not covered by law. If there were any culpable information , it would have been found in the RNC compute system at the WH. It is very probable that this information is gone, irretrievable. My guess is that it is both a mistake and misconduct. This is the most secretive administration ever and we will probably not like what we find out in the future. We just recently learned that the event that was used to escalate the Viet Nam war was false. What will history actually show for the actions of this administration?

zbyte
zbyte

Why? Well I am assuming that those of you out here are IT pros with different levels of experience. Those of you with many years of experience running IT (or Data Processing ) departments have a standard and policy for backups, Right? If you are like me, you know damn well that not having a backup done or "get lost" is essentially impossible and very surely result in firing, legal action, etc. Why? Because the essence of most businesses is the information. It is ALL about the information. In IT, if you miss a backup, or "lose it", it could result in millions of dollars in losses. I have worked for the feds, there are sloppy things going on in IT at that level and a lot of it is deliberate and condoned by higher ups. This administration (if you have followed it), is one of the most crooked in history. And the thing is, they do not intend to be busted (at any cost). What we have here are essentially extreme radical ideological people that came up during the Nixon Administration. They saw how that administration went down in flames after the tapes were made available via court order (white house recordings of conversations). The biggest mistake that these radicals saw during the Nixon Administration, was that they did not burn the tapes. Now, the attitude is "no holds barred". Destroy, burn, format and shred everything. There was an editorial cartoon recently out of the St. Pete Times that showed construction taking place for the future "George W. Bush presidential library". Outside the building were a group of workers stating, .."gee I don't know why they built this, there is nothing to put in there...". "They burned and destroyed everything.....". Get it?

guy.goiran
guy.goiran

DoD and specialised Agencies (eg CIA !) own technical devices & process which make them able to decypher pre wrtitten tapes. So there is no excuse to not use their cooperation to answer the court request.

tim
tim

That everyone get rid of any emails or business data that is more than 3 years old!

ole
ole

From a neutral perspective, one first question to ask would be "did the Administration have something it wanted to conceal? Second question would be "did the Administration have the knowhow (trained staff on hand) to avoid making such a mistake." From a subjective perspective, I believe the Administration had much it wanted to conceal, e.g. lying about the reasons for war. I also can't imagine that this Administration did not have competent staff to determine when they did and did not wipe out Email information. So you see, your answers depend on whether or not you wish to protect and support the Bush Administration. Objectivity? Dream on!

t.healy
t.healy

When asscociated with backup tapes, the word "recycle" means to "write over", or erase. I would hope this type of operation would be ordered by the President himself, although not on paper or electronically. The rap belongs to "Uncle Sam". Oops, I mean "Uncle George".

DMambo
DMambo

The beauty of this convenient blunder is that the average Joe on the street and the average big corporation TV or newspaper reporter doesn't have a clue what a backup tape looks like or how a backup is done. Since it's too much work to investigate or think about it, it'll blow over because there will be no hue and cry to get to the bottom of it. Now if Britney Spears or Terrell Owens were somehow involved, then the press would never let go.

Mr L
Mr L

...take your pick.

Forum Surfer
Forum Surfer

More than likely someone mislabeled the tapes or just flat out grabbed the wrong ones. Our policy dictates not to recycle the tape, but to move them to our offsite disaster recovery fireproof storage in another state...which eliminates such mistakes (which imo is too expensive and a little too anal). More than likely some poor "new guy" will be found at fault and promptly fired as the escape goat, as with any company/govt. Or it could be cover ups for the UFO sightings in Texas :) .

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

This administration has repeatedly demonstrated it's lack of technical comprehension. Those of you who feel it's deliberate misconduct are giving it too much credit for understanding it's actions. This is just another example of it being unable to locate it's output port with two hands and a GPS.

nwoodson
nwoodson

Score one for the mouth breathers. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.....but being "the Decider" is. :)

brent3600
brent3600

As Anonymous himself once said, "Do not mistake for conspiracy and intrigue what can best be explained by stupidity and incompetence." That's a pretty useful principle. But when there is a consistent pattern of stupidity and incompetence, on issue after issue, which so often seem to protect the administration from the consequences of its actions, and enable it to do what the President wants to do, reality not withstanding, one can no longer give the administration the benefit of the doubt. In the face of systematic stupidity and incompetence, one has to assume obstruction of justice charges are in order.

IC-IT
IC-IT

The laws to maintain the records have existed for quite awhile. It would seem that someone instituted a new policy that intentionally and systematically destroys any records of misconduct/collusion. Could have been an honest mistake, but if so what a complete dumba$$. There would have been clear backup instructions and an emphasis on record integrity; gov. are infamous for their anal retentive checklists, documentation, and training.

tonoohay
tonoohay

Attempts to re-write reality are the reason so many former GOP types have left the party. No one has ever been prosecuted under the 208-year old law, according to the Congressional Research Service. The Logan Act is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

alieninvader
alieninvader

...the Bush Administration "un-signed" the United States from the International Criminal Court as soon as they took over. It's an administration that has, from day one, used some of the country's most brilliant (but rabidly ideological) legal minds to determine what they could get away with, not what's best for our country - and then hide the evidence. See Jack Goldsmith's new book, "The Terror Presidency" - it will turn your stomach

PsiFiScout
PsiFiScout

The White House loses e-mails, so do many corporations, no one keeps EVERY e-mail. Power outages failed tapes/drives, and human error, all of these occur. But I have to wonder why this was raised as such a major point. Is there and investigation? No. Is there any reason for raising this other than to further try to embarass the Bush Administration? I wonder what we would find if every member of congress was subjected to the same examination of office records??? How many Congressional records would be absent??

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

That was a joke. Liberals don't seem to have a sense of humor anymore either.

rhomp2002
rhomp2002

I assume you can prove that the policy on re-using a backup tape was changed after jan 20, 2001. If not then all your posts fail due to the re-use being SOP for the organization. If Bush and company did not change a long-standing policy of prior administrations and did not appoint their own IT guy but kept the one in place who was there from the previous administration, then the fault is elsewhere than the administration. After all almost all the problems of this administration have come from lower level people who were not replaced when Bush came into office.

JCitizen
JCitizen

Clinton was never impeached, they couldn't garner enough votes to pull it off. But you are right he did have impeachment proceeding brought against him.

Forum Surfer
Forum Surfer

Blunders happen. Sometimes it's an inept staff, or simply one FNG that causes a disaster. Or maybe I'm wrong and the enitre staff was corrupt right down to the IT staff and the door man...and the tooth fairy is real.

JCitizen
JCitizen

cared came out of the GAO and started the DOD's (and any departments) first hotline for fraud, waste, and abuse. The program was ingenius because insulated the whistle blower from disclosure, and when the Inspector General was done accounting for the benefits of ridding the system of found fraud,waste, or abuse the bean counters would reward the whistle blower with a small percentage of the savings to the tax payer. Needless to say it was impressive to see PFCs receiving $250,000 checks for the huge saving they made for the tax payers. Thats why we made it thru Desert Storm with all the soldiers getting the beans, bullets, and bandages without exception! Also needless to say the OMB wanted to hang him from his heels because this made congress nervous that they were seeing the end of pork as they knew it! We now see more and more of these headlines for f-w-&-a but the only problem is the rest of government has no reward system, and they aren't investigated from the top down. So department heads don't pay the price for mistakes like they did in the Army.

rhomp2002
rhomp2002

Look at the history of crooked elections lately. ACORN handing out drugs to get people to register. Finding ballots in boxes that have already been emptied multiple times (Washington). Attacking the office of the Republican candidates (Florida). Paying people to vote (East St Louis,Ill). Puncturing the tires on vans to be used to get people to the polls (Milwaukee). More people voting than even live in the district (Milwaukee, Seattle). Deciding how people wanted to vote because of a pimple on the ballot (Florida). Keeping selected precincts open after the election hours are done (St Loouis). Throwing out military ballots (Florida, San Francisco). Allowing people to register from mail box sites even though the law says you have to register at your home (Seattle). Voting when you are not a permanent resident (Florida/New York, Florida/Indiana, Florida/Massachusetts). Signing up illegal immigrants to allow them to vote (San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle). Allowing people to cast absentee ballots for dead people (Seattle). Shooting out the windows in the republican offices (West Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi). Carpetbagging candidates (New York). Changing the rules when your candidate is indicted (New Jersey). Keeping indicted representatives in positions of authority (US Congressional democrats multiple times). Complaining about the misvoting of the public when the democrats were the ones who designed the ballots (Florida). Complaining about how there was a misallocation of resources in the election when the county is completely controlled by the democrats (Ohio - Cuyahoga County). These were all democratic initiatives, not republican. Talk about crooked! And of course you are not a Democrat, obviously not, and you are not pushing the DNC line either. It just looks that way. Nobody would accuse of anything but using your home-grown logic to see the world. Of course your home is the DNC but what does that matter.

homesjc
homesjc

A view from Australia seems that the ?inmates have got control of the asylum?, or more seriously that a coup d??tat is maybe being planned for the day after the election. Time to clean up your image, its giving other governments including ours, a bad example.

rhomp2002
rhomp2002

Are you in a position to know whether any other tapes have been found erased? If not you are just blowing smoke about a president you don't like.

d_g_l_s
d_g_l_s

I thoroughly agree! As a Canadian I can't believe the disrespect given to the President. This non-technical arena has no business being here on a technical site. As I said previously, no statues or memorials have ever been put up for a critic or a complainer! Let's you and I move on to more positives and be change-makers. Have you seen the latest best-seller, "Launching a Leadership Revolution", by Time-Warner? Excellent book - a must read!

ebsfrmr
ebsfrmr

I could also see where IT staff could transfer those generational backups to a larger backup disk system...larger data storage solutions become cheaper and more compact all the time. Tapes are not as stable as other media types. Those tapes could then be placed back into daily, weekly, monthly, yearly service...That could be a responsible IT Department strategy, to make sure the data on those tapes were somehow backed up first before they were rewitten. However, if they later found the backups of the backups were corrupted, that could be an unfortunate human error mistake. Again, my understanding of good IT policies, would be to test your backups for accuracy, particularly if you are dealing with data governed by laws.

iam
iam

Just sit back over the next few years and watch you ideological fantasies crumble. Only conservatives can screw up things this badly. Have you any idea how much damage this administration has done to our country and the world? It will take a hundred years to get back to where we were when Bill Clinton left office.

rhomp2002
rhomp2002

You just learned that the even that was used to escalate the Viet Nam war was false. Anyone with any reading comprehension has known that for 4 decades. We also have known for years that Walter Cronkite lied about the result of the Tet Offensive. The general in charge of the North Vietnamese forces told us back in the 1970's that they were ready to surrender when they realized what was happening as a result of Uncle Walter's commenting and decided to keep on fighting. As to secretive, how about losing 900 FBI investigative files for months only to have them suddenly show up in an office where they had no business being in the first place (Hillary's, just in case you are wondering). How about losing info 2 years and then suddenly finding it when threatened with a subpoena (Rose billing records). How about turning over classified information to a PI who had had his license taken away for ethical violations (FBI files). I think what history will actually show for the actions of this administration is that with all the misquotes by the media and with a hostile opposition party that conveniently forgets the statements made by its members for years prior to the war on Iraq, they did the right thing.

j25or625
j25or625

Wouldn't the rap taken by the WV girl in Abu Ghraib abuse be a case in point? The manner in which this unfolded in the media revealed the transparency of the administration by its feeble attempt to lead us to believe errant soldiers were entirely to blame.

iam
iam

destroying evidence.

TechinMN
TechinMN

There can be NO doubt that it's a case of misconduct. Classified records do NOT get accidentally deleted. Ever. This is fact. Someone orders it, someone signs off on it...and it's not the new-kid intern (though that's who'll probably be made the scape goat). With these also being Presidential records, that becomes even more unlikely. You'd have to be incredibly gullible to believe this was an accident. Even more gullible to believe there's no other way of producing these records, if for no other reason than continuity of government in the face of disaster or attack. Consider that records can be reproduced for over 40 years of presidents...and then all of a sudden, against all odds, the (supposedly) only record of higly-sensitive emails gets 'accidentally' overwritten? Riiight. Hmm...wonder if this can be used as a defense against the IRS. If it's okay for the WH to not keep classified records for more than five years, why should I keep my financial ones for ten? See how far that flies.

jmarkovic32
jmarkovic32

What a talented fella! Let's blame Bush for everything.

iam
iam

It's the LAW.

mbaumli
mbaumli

You get in a pinch and do stupid things. Happens all of the time. I am guilty of this from very recently. Simple mistake of not pulling a tape can cost quite a bit.

dbink
dbink

Political views set aside, it's hard to not suspect something greater here. I fear that charges will never be raised. I only hope that this administration's disasters will give a ideal platform for significant change. I believe the next presidential election is going to have the greatest voter turnout ever.

luke.asbury
luke.asbury

Not when the administration controls the judiciary. . .

j25or625
j25or625

Throughout the Bush II presidency, I've fallen sway to the notion that what can easily be perceived as bungling may have as much purpose as details in advertisements. I think this administration is a slick operation with hidden agendas. This is not to say dubious decision-making hasn't been implemented without wreckless abandon; but rather without reservations about any repercussive fallout.

zeroidgrl
zeroidgrl

I totally agree with your last sentense... 'gov. are infamous for their anal retentive checklists, documentation, and training." I spent time in the USAF, I have numerous friends that work in various federal depts. they have reference manuals on how to use reference manuals. The levels of redundancy and oversight are a mainstay and a running joke. I find it hard to believe that just one person was responsible and that if it was a mistake some one should have caught it before "everything before 2003" was destroyed.

JCitizen
JCitizen

in that fire over by the White House the other day, do you? ]:)

luke.asbury
luke.asbury

Oh no! It COULDN'T have been deliberate! Lies, deceit and corruption? Of course not! This administration wouldn't do THAT! (If you believe this, I've got a good deal for you on a famous bridge).

MGP2
MGP2

President Cheney and Vice President Bush have yet to come across a law that they feel applies to them. They wipe their butt with the constititution and then label every action as Executive Privelege. If they prosecuted Clinton for a bj, these two scum bags should rot in Guantanamo Bay for a few decades.

Forum Surfer
Forum Surfer

Internatin intervention should only be neccessary if a country threatens another country directly or commits crimes outside of their borders.

PsiFiScout
PsiFiScout

The US opting out of the ICC (which by it's nature is a direct attack on its signers sovereignty) should be avoided at all costs. Countries need to police themselves, they don't need to have the ICC interfering with their internal affairs.

rhomp2002
rhomp2002

When was the United States ever signed from the International Criminal Court? We were not nor should we ever be. You have an international court that spent years trying the Servian and never got the job done until he died. They have no rules on who will be jurors. They have no rules on whether you should be assumed innocent or guilty. They have no rules on how punishment should be implemented. They have no set of laws. They have no standards on who can be judges or who can practice in the courts. They have no rules on who gets to judge which countries. It is all just a feel-good setup with no basis so that you can play gotcha with your enemies. The last thing we should get involved with is that group. And before you bring it up we also never signed up for Kyoto either. Until the Senate approves it we are not a party to international treaties and Clinton knew that he would lose a unanimous vote against the Kyoto treaty if he submitted it so he never did. Bush did not un-sign Kyoto.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

Don't expect me to defend the Clintons regarding recordkeeping. Remember, under court order Hillary couldn't find her own billing records when they were only a few feet away from her right there in the White House. My point is that that it would be hypocritical of me to be critical of any Damocratic administration who failed to live up to the law if I wasn't willing to apply the same standard to a Republican one.

PsiFiScout
PsiFiScout

Plame was not a NOC, she was an analyst and not a covert operative. She was not protected by the rules regarding covert operatives. That is why no one has been prosecuted for "outing" her, there was no crime. Libby got caught in a "Process Crime" by a prosecutor who was on a witch hunt to save his own reputation.

PsiFiScout
PsiFiScout

If the embarrassment factor was brought on by the ineptitude of the Bush administration (Gee you mean Bush personally does tape backups of his IT data as well as his duties of Office?), I wonder what we could dig up on Clinton and Carter in this area? Then perhaps we need a watchdog to specifically look after this subject, maybe we could use this same rule to nail Hillary or Obama if they win. After all Hillary couldn't keep track of the Rose Law firm records that she lost, that is until it meant possibly being cited for contempt. Then she got real good at locating lost records.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

...because: A) She wasn't an "operative". B) The person who first "outed" her wasn't in the employ of the President. C) Her husband had already outed her to anyone who'd listen

tonoohay
tonoohay

1) it is an on going effort to find who really 'leaked' the name and operating company used for cover of a NOC CIA person! 2) the 'W' Prez said on national TV to all of the world to hear that anyone involved would be 'fired'! Still waiting on that to happen! There is a Congressional investigation with real Judges and court orders inplace to maintain records involved! Sorry it's so difficult to understand!

tonoohay
tonoohay

1) it is an on going effort to find who really 'leaked' the name and operating company used for cover of a NOC CIA person! 2) the 'W' Prez said on national TV to all of the world to hear that anyone involved would be 'fired'! Still waiting on that to happen! There is a Congressional investigation with real Judges and court orders inplace to maintain records involved! Sorry it's so difficult to understand!

tonoohay
tonoohay

1) it is an on going effort to find who really 'leaked' the name and operating company used for cover of a NOC CIA person! 2) the 'W' Prez said on national TV to all of the world to hear that anyone involved would be 'fired'! Still waiting on that to happen! There is a Congressional investigation with real Judges and court orders inplace to maintain records involved! Sorry it's so difficult to understand!

tonoohay
tonoohay

1) it is an on going effort to find who really 'leaked' the name and operating company used for cover of a NOC CIA person! 2) the 'W' Prez said on national TV to all of the world to hear that anyone involved would be 'fired'! Still waiting on that to happen! There is a Congressional investigation with real Judges and court orders inplace to maintain records involved! Sorry it's so difficult to understand!

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

...and it's the responsibility of IT people to see to it that power outages, failed tapes & drives, and human error do not result in the loss of such data. Yes, of course this is being used to embarras the Bush administration. But then again, this is an example of where they Bush administration set itself up to be embarrased.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

That explains why so many of the left's leading pundits today got their starts in comedy clubs.

IC-IT
IC-IT

So I can throw out an inflammatory remark and then claim Oh it's just a joke. Wait let me throw another barb in for the heck of it. Or should I reply in the same vein? Right-wingers (notice the lack of the word conservatives) absolutely don't know how to tell a proper joke. ;-)

khillen
khillen

Where you get the notion that I am toting the DNC, or any line is beyond me. Just because I don?t spout conspiracy with every breath does not mean that I wear blinders either. Can complaining about past injustices change them?? NO. Only involving ourselves and working to bring qualified candidates, can we hope to change the system. When is the last time you voted, worked for (not just donate money) a candidate that you really checked into, educated voters on how to vote (note I did not say who) the real issues and not just the media rhetoric, lobbied your local representatives to amend or change a law, worked your local election board ?? Stop bemoaning and get up and do something. My son was in the military when that little fiasco occurred with the military voting- we were proactive, we made sure that the unit my son was in got (that they got the forms to fill out ? that the forms were returned ? that they received their absentee ballots and that the ballots arrived at their local polling places) to vote and that their votes were counted. We did not ask who they were voting for ? we just made sure that they were able to vote. Home grown logic ? well I hope so, since the first place that you should try to make a difference is in your own home town. Everyone wants to start big- Federal government. When is the last time that they were responsible for picking up your garbage, maintaining your local roads, policing your neighborhoods. You can?t build a house without a good foundation. I live in a town that for the last 60+ years has been controlled by one party. (One party rule never benefits anyone, except the elect official in that party) Our bridges & roads are failing, our taxes are high (ex. 45% parking tax for people trying to work in Downtown area ), we are paying for stadiums.( Although according to the elected officials we are not, but it is our tax dollars (state and county) that maintain the structure) The groups that I belong to are making in roads, yes it is taking awhile, but Rome wasn?t built in a day either. PS. I am an elected Republican committee person, you can read the reasons I am a Republican on the following website ?pghgop.org- however I never identify myself by my political party - I am an American first and foremost.

rhomp2002
rhomp2002

Actually the same could be said of Australia since you had people resigning from office the day after they were appointed because they could not work with the new prime minister - and not just one.

PsiFiScout
PsiFiScout

Back to where we were when Slick left office...I hope not, we were the laughing stock of the world then. The only ones who dislike us now are the radical lefties and the despots, I would rather be hated by that bunch...than to be counted among them.

jmarkovic32
jmarkovic32

It will take another hundred years to systematically gut and weaken America's armed forces and intelligence leading up to another 9/11? You ideologues are rediculous!

PsiFiScout
PsiFiScout

As a retired soldier, I can tell you from personal experience that soldiers sometimes do act independent of command. I had a soldier that went AWOL and financed his trip from Louisiana to Massachusetts with worthless checks. Neither I (nor the President) ordered him to go AWOL, nor did I (or the President) tell him to write bad checks, but he did anyway. He was apprehended, returned to the base for Court Martial. If no evidence of orders being issued to the soldiers at Abu Grahib can be found then they are guilty and if verbal orders were issued to the Abu Grahib guards then they were bound by the UCMJ to disobey such illegal orders. Under provisions of the UCMJ the soldiers are accountable for following illegal orders be they from the squad leader, Corps Commander or the C in C. Being young, impressionable and/or scared of the boss is not a defense.

uberg33k50
uberg33k50

I don't know how it is where you work but most places the people who run the company have no idea how IT works but you can bet your a$$ that they tell IT what they want done. They don't care how it gets done just that it is done.

tomhirtler
tomhirtler

Even if some flunky made a stupid mistake the president is responsible for what happens in his administration. Don't believe me. Ask Capt. Joe what he was doing at 12:04 am on March 24, 1989. I'll give you a hint he wasn't steering AND he had left instructions for Exxon Valdez to have a course change that would have avoided the reef. Still not satisfied; I?m sure you can find a CEO or two in prison because someone under them did or failed to do something. Others have already pointed out that reusing 4+ year old backup tapes is not "green" it's negligent. Considering how unpopular the current administration is the IT manager was negligent for allowing this to happen. Everyone should have seen a law suit coming and taken proper steps to make sure the tapes were available and in good working order. Unless, of course, this wasn?t an accident.

iam
iam

Let's blame bush for death, destruction, war, debt, incompetence, and sitting on his ass like a frightened rabbit, waiting for someone to tell him what to do for 7 minutes AFTER he was told that the US was under attack in that classroom on 9-11. Worst President EVER. Not even close.

Forum Surfer
Forum Surfer

There are governmental laws regarding email compliance for government agencies or private corps that handle medical records...HIPAA. MY legal staff at another job once pointed out that our exchange server backup and retention solution proposal was more expensive than the actual fines we would face if this data were simply "lost in a server crash". Since they had a top notch legal staff they wern't too concerned with evidence lost in emails, which were (per policy) public records in this particular company. So guess which route I was forced to take... I

tomhirtler
tomhirtler

when the candidates are all the same. The voters need to force the states to change the rules so that we don't have to pick the least bad any longer.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

Elimination of high tax rates is what caused the rebirth of Ireland. Everyone finally came to the conclusion that capitalism was better for everyone than blowing each other up. Clinton certainly had nothing to do with that.

Wizard-09
Wizard-09

Did a lot, look at what he did for Ireland and the peace process over here, what did bush do bring war on his country and come on was part of 9/11. Bush can't even talk right look at the silly mistakes he made on t.v i would have clinton anyday bush is a willy head

JCitizen
JCitizen

Got to admit the government that governs least is good, argument always sounds right!

Absolutely
Absolutely

[i]If you were to read the latest comments from the investigators both from Britain and the US you would realize that the CIA gave the administration the intelligence from our European allies that formed the basis for our going into the war and to this day says it was true and justified.[/i] Please provide a URL for those comments, kthx.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

We're all better off when Congress is too busy bashing itself, and too divided "to get anything done". It's only then that the rest of the country can get anything done long-term, without fear that Congress is going to pull the rug out from under them in the process.

rhomp2002
rhomp2002

If you were to read the latest comments from the investigators both from Britain and the US you would realize that the CIA gave the administration the intelligence from our European allies that formed the basis for our going into the war and to this day says it was true and justified. The idiot Wilson who testified to the falsity of the intelligence could not have seen it because at the time he was testifying about it had not even been brought to light. The CIA gave the info to the White House that Saddam not only had WMD at the time but they did not even mention that they had any info that it was erroneous. You in your infinite wisdom are trying to claim that it should have been known at the time when you are looking at it in hindsight. You also seem to think that history began with 9/11 and nothing that was left over from the previous administration, like the USS Cole or the embassy bombings or Somalia, ever happened. Bush is, believe it or not, responsible for the heartbreak of psoriasis.

JCitizen
JCitizen

We need to learn to get along, especially in Congress where the vitrol is so bad they can't get what needs to be done. I hope the next President doen't just pay lip service to "uniter not divider" unlike the last one did.

Absolutely
Absolutely

[i]We have had the media spend months detailing all the problems over and over and putting all the blame on Bush and then skating on all the liberal transgressions and then the liberals claim that the media is in the pockets of the right wingers.[/i] Which transgressions, exactly, do you mean to compare to initiation of war in Iraq, on falsified evidence?

rhomp2002
rhomp2002

After a generation of the opponents running to their pet courts to overturn the initiatives that the people vote for specifically and running to the courts for all their speech codes and running to the courts to have the courts make up legislation, now the opponents are non-fanatical type of person and don't bring accusations without proof. The delusions of the liberals are beyond belief. We have had the media spend months detailing all the problems over and over and putting all the blame on Bush and then skating on all the liberal transgressions and then the liberals claim that the media is in the pockets of the right wingers. The major liberal newspaper tells the terrorists exactly how the intelligence agencies track them down so they can change the methodology and then claims it is their right to do so because it is a free press and even thought the administration went to them and told them what would happen if they published it and that more of our troops would be killed the newspaper decided that their right to print it mattered more than the fate of the soldiers. Thank you oonce again liberals. It was good for sales of cell phones though.

Absolutely
Absolutely

You have no argument; that's just name-calling. [i]The liberal pundits come up with amazingly [b]idiotic[/b] commentary, liberal rank and file members jump in like a [b]pack of dogs[/b] and lap up the propaganda, then when called on it, the liberal rank and file distance themselves from the [b]idiotic[/b] comments by claiming "I didn't say that" even though they fully agree with the commentary.[/i] How do you even take yourself seriously?

Absolutely
Absolutely

[i]Bush has been getting bashed since BEFORE he took office following the 2000 election. Yet, funny thing is he's never had anyone with and actual legal case brought against him. I have to wonder why??? Could it he that all the criticism is baseless rhetoric, and not containing a shred of truth?[/i] No, it's because all the people who bring frivolous crap like the blue dress, and claim it's a 'national security' compromise to boink the intern, are on Bush's side. His opponents' constituents, being the non-fanatical type of person, don't bring accusations without proof. But, I don't believe that even the 'moderate' voters will take this kind of crap again, from anybody.

zeroidgrl
zeroidgrl

Under normal circumstances I would totally agree with your "bring on the evidence" statement. However we have seen for quite sometime how money and power buys justice.

zeroidgrl
zeroidgrl

As stated earlier I am a Libertarian not Liberal... We seek personal responsibility, not finger pointing.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

...who seem to be constantly in trouble for things like trafficing, rape, extortion and selling aid. We do set the gold standard for behavior. And that is why when we fall short of that standard, it's big international news. When other nations and organizations fail to live up to that standard, it's simply business as usual.

ole
ole

Do you really think that one has to be a zealot on either the right or left to have had enough of the dishonesty among our elected officials, be they in this administration of previous ones? What we need is an intelligent and, yes, sane discussion without name calling and "ad hominem" attacks. Unfortunately, I have seen neither in this ever-growing number of attacks and counter-attacks of this dialogue. Your installment to the discussion is no exception. It is time to cut out the crap, call a spade a space but without the emotional baggage. It is time for us Americans to sit down together calmly and with manners to find our way to better understanding of our problems and solutions. And, yes, we deserve much better honesty and candor from our elected officials of all colors and stripes. Ole Kristensen

PsiFiScout
PsiFiScout

Why do Clinton fans only cite the rule of law when it is convenient for their position? Read the Constitution. The rules of impeachment mandate that if a charge of an impeachable offense is made that it MUST be investigated. He wasn't impeached for adultery, he was impeached for lying during the investigation. The same as like Scooter Libby who was prosecuted for "lying (his most recent testimony didn't match his testimony of two years earlier). But then the loony left tends to cite the Constitution when it is convenient. As for revenge, should we discuss the libs attempts, during the 2000 election to smear Bush with the carefully timed, last minute, revelation of a DUI charge?? Or, the claims that "Bush Lied" when no one has evidence that he did? Did he lie or did he merely cite intelligence reports? No one seems to want that question to have a solid resolution. Bush is far from the guy that Republicans thought they were getting, but just like you assertion of "HALF-MILLION innocent Iraqis" killed, he is catching a lot of unsubstantiated criticism that amount to little more than anti Bush "Band wagon" attacks. The left is so desperate to trash Bush simply to regain power, that they are running two rookies in the next election, a victimized female and an African American, simply to go for the minority and sympathy vote. They care nothing for the country or they would run someone who actually knows what the yare doing. Perhaps sanity has fled the entire Left wing of politics.

Forum Surfer
Forum Surfer

Our troops are held at a higher standard than any nation in the world. We don't have "grunts" out there running around blindly. We have highly trained and skilled people doing their jobs to the best of their ability. You cannot have a conflict in city streets and public building without civilian casualties. It may be wrong that they are there...but that is out of their control. Our troops are there doing the task they have been given, and are doing a damn fine job of it.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

Can you name any major war in our history where fewer civilians were injured or killed than in Iraq?

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

George Bush (2) trashed the economy of the late '90s because of the presidency of George Bush (1). Okay then. Then it only makes sense that Bill Clinton inherited the good economy laid down by Ronald Reagan.

PsiFiScout
PsiFiScout

I'll bet you are among the bunch who still think that Bush is an "idiot" but was still smart enough to engineer the theft of TWO ELECTIONS. Gotta love that logic. I felt safer in my last destruction derby, than driving with people like you on the road.

Popoyd
Popoyd

I agree about the troops being under constant danger. Acivists ARE ussually not uniformed troops and all that. I know the troops are not targetting civilians. If they were, there would be lots (and I mean LOTS) more casualties. real civilian casualties are herd to assess, I agree there too. Yet you cannot deny wrondoings and wrongful casualties, as unintended as they were. War does that, yes. But the US is supposed to have higher standards than that. There shouldn't be so many casualties and YES, many are innocent civilians, like it on not.

Popoyd
Popoyd

Not that George. DUH

Forum Surfer
Forum Surfer

Looks to me like the study relies on a lot of door to door "surveys" in which you can't tell if the people are telling the truth. And after a gun battle there, it's hard to tell by the aftermath what happened. The people shooting at our troops are dressed like civilians because they are civilians...only armed. All that's needed to make a "civilian" casualty is to remove the weapon after the fight, which looters will do. I stand by my statement that our troops are doing a fantastic job, though our being there is questionable at best.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

Please do explain how it would be possible for Bush to have caused the "crash of 2000" when he was even inaugurated until 2001. (You'd think that if he'd mastered time travel, that he could have spared us so much of the other nonsense that we've had to endure) That?s almost as funny as John Kerry?s blaming his being in Cambodia in 1968 on Nixon. At least I?d expect Kerry to know a bit more about places he?d been and dates he?d experienced. What?s your excuse?

tonoohay
tonoohay

ACTUALLY THE JURY HAS BEEN IN FOR SOME TIME! ______________________________________ As for Bush lying us into war...the jury is still out on that one. ...................NO, NOT REALLY.......... Do you have evidence that he purposefully lied and that it was not faulty intelligence reports? ..........CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE.... _______________________________________ BECAUSE YOU ASKED FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ________________________________________ Study: False statements preceded war By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press WriterWed Jan 23, 6:43 AM ET A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks. The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses." The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism. White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat. "The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said. The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both. "It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003." Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan. Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida. The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews. "The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded. "Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said. ___ On the Net: Center For Public Integrity: http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx Fund For Independence in Journalism: http://www.tfij.org/ Copyright ? 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

PsiFiScout
PsiFiScout

"well he's an idiot and a liar." -mabingle- This has often been said of Bush and those around him. But I have to ask "How is Clinton considered so smart??? Clinton got busted by an intern and then lied about it. How smart can you be if you get caught in that situation? Clinton was considered to have acheived great academic accomplishment (I have to question the Rhodes Scholar system) early in his life, but in his Presidency he showed a complete absence of common sense. Clinton showed by his actions and reactions, to be a total fool.

PsiFiScout
PsiFiScout

The liberal pundits come up with amazingly idiotic commentary, liberal rank and file members jump in like a pack of dogs and lap up the propaganda, then when called on it, the liberal rank and file distance themselves from the idiotic comments by claiming "I didn't say that" even though they fully agree with the commentary.

Forum Surfer
Forum Surfer

While I may disagree with our troops being there, I support and respect them fully. I have friends that went over in the service and as security contractors. You can portray it how you want, but our people aren't targeting innocent people. Our people however, spend their days in crowded areas as walking targets for snipers and roadside bombs.

PsiFiScout
PsiFiScout

First of all Clinton was not put on trial for a legal act. He was prosecuted for obstruction of justice, he lost his law license on an ethics violation. His factual illgal act was lying to a grand jury. Yes the investigation into the improprieties showed adultery, a highly odious action, but not illegal. But without the investigation of the charge there was no way to know that. So the investigation was warranted. As for your charge of revenge, democrats were talking about impeaching Bush before he won in 2000. So that charge cuts both ways. The lefties in this country were also claiming that Bush stole the election in 2000, while at the same time the dems were trying to disenfranchise military members serving overseas who honestly voted using abesentee ballots, because the Gore team was afraid they would go mostly to Bush. As for Bush lying us into war...the jury is still out on that one. Do you have evidence that he purposefully lied and that it was not faulty intelligence reports? You don't! Nor has anyone shown proof that he lied. Liberals in this country started out by claiming that there were no WMDs in Iraq, then when chemical weaposns started being dug up in the desert the liberal line changed from "There are no WMDs" to "Well there are no nukes". I suppose if nukes had been found they would have changed their focus to Bio-weapons. The point is that the UN sat down dozens of Un mandates for Iraq to follow and Hussein blew them off, and he did have weapons that the UN decided he had to give up. Then there is the arguement that Hussien only had weapons that other nations have (the US in particular) and why shoud the US have them if Hussein could not. Well the answer to that is being replayed today in Iran. The difference is that Iraq attacked its neighbor Kuwait without provocation. The US hasn't hit Mexico or Canada lately, and unlike Iran whos President vowed to "wipe Israel off the map", the U.S. is not out vowing to destroy anyone. The casualties are tragic, indeed no one knows that better than I. But compared to other wars that the U.S. has fought, 4000, is a small number. Clinton did manage to keep casualties down even though he had the US military scattered all over the planet for most of his time in office, but like the coward he is, he tried to fight his wars in the Balkans from 30,000 feet. He caused nearly no loss of US forces, and inflicted nearly no damage on the enemy. At least Bush didn't bomb the Chinese by mistake as Clinton did. Also the casualty rate you quote on the Iraqis is, as are most liberals estimates, wildly inflated. But then I suppose you are claiming that all casualties that the suicide bombers in Iraq are inflicing as US inflicted.

sroles
sroles

Why not start a new thread to allow Bush and Clinton bashing...and leave this one to it's own original subject. WH emails.

PsiFiScout
PsiFiScout

Apparently, you have a fuzzier memory than I. Yes, Clinton had a good economy fueled by the .COM bubble, but it flopped eight months before he left office leaving the recession that Bush inherited. This along with minefield of Executive Orders filled with nonsense that Clinton enacted prior to his departure. Then there is the non stop investigations by liberals in Congress that Bush has had to deal with, such as the firing of the 8 Fed Prosecutors (never mind that Clinton fired 132 and no one so much as raised an eyebrow). Then there was the "peacekeeping" missions (which enriched the UN at the expense of the US taxpayers), that Clinton sent out as a diversion for his abysmal performance domestically, and his attempts to destroy the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments to the Constitution. Yep, the "Dope from Hope" was a real boon for this country.

PsiFiScout
PsiFiScout

Lets see....where to begin???? mass murder - The war right? In war people die, FDR, Truman, Johnson have much higher body counts than Bush. destruction of the economy - DOW over 10,000 for the 1st time in history, yep that's bad destruction of integrity - Get real it's politics none of them have integrity including (I did not have sex... what is the definition of "is") Clinton. making Constitution illegal - Clinton tried to abolish the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments with his BS assault gun ban and project ECHELON.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

1441 specifically reaffirmed 678. Was quite specific, in fact.

Popoyd
Popoyd

Only a minority are extermists. Women and children should not be harmed, no matter how "just" you consider your cause. People work there, if you don't know... there are farmers, shopkeepers, workers and so on that have never held a gun, just like the US. Bombing schools and hospitals is not justified any way you see it... unless you're a terrorist, of course.

Popoyd
Popoyd

Well so did 660. But it took 678 to authorize the actual use of force. There was no such resolution in this case.

Kurse
Kurse

Infidelity and misuse of the public trust are quite a ways off from crimes against humanity!

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

But clearly you did not. Iraq had kicked out the inspectors, which was in violation of 1441. The UN affirms this on their own web site: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm 1441 also specifically states: "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area...the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;" Not specific enough?

PsiFiScout
PsiFiScout

I used to take political criticism seriously, but the more I hear comments such as these, the less I pay attention to them. Clinton committed the biggest political blunder in modern times by committing adultery in the White House, and he caught hell for it, then the left started on a tirade against Bush more as a reaction of criticisms of Clinton than for anything he had done. Bush has been getting bashed since BEFORE he took office following the 2000 election. Yet, funny thing is he's never had anyone with and actual legal case brought against him. I have to wonder why??? Could it he that all the criticism is baseless rhetoric, and not containing a shred of truth? If the guy is guilty then someone needs to bring forth the evidence, otherwise the whining of his opponents is nothing but a bag of horse feathers.

aseymour
aseymour

check the manual and let's stop bashing the country, clintons and bushes. America is about coming together for a better way of life and freedom. Let's check the P&P for the White House Admin and then start fingerprinting.

Forum Surfer
Forum Surfer

Don't actually get to meet many Libertarians. I agree with a lot of the party's views. Personally I wasn't a fan of Clinton or Bush...though I did vote Bush because of who his opposition was. I felt Bush was the lesser of two evils, and I still do. And you are right about the assets, he did freeze them. Good call, but I felt that freezing his assets was a little like stealing a mafia hitman's wallet. It helps, but needs to be backed up with some attitude and whooparse.

zeroidgrl
zeroidgrl

what people do or did not realize was that CLinton did freeze Bin Laden's assets. And I am a gun-owning registered Libertarian

zeroidgrl
zeroidgrl

The main difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton didn't get away with his lies. Now to disagree is called "unpatriotic" by the current regime. Which I think is ironic considering when this country was first being formed public discourse and the freedom to disagree was considered Patriotic. Besides no one DIED when Clinton lied.

rhomp2002
rhomp2002

I think we are discussing an SOP for the White House IT staff. As of yet we don't know when the policy for reusing the email threads was put in place. If it was not in place prior to 2001, then your comment is correct. If it is just a continuation of past practices, and I personally think it was, then your comment is completely out of line. In any case the comments should be about the policy itself, when it was put in place, whether there is any way to recover the lost emails at this point in time and also to make sure that the policy is changed toute suite. It should not be about fingerpointing without knowing whether the fingers should be pointed or not.

zeroidgrl
zeroidgrl

Let's see, Bush Jr is finishing up his second term in office which means 2003 also covers him. About the time that we were dragged into a war that as we know know was based on lies.... Sorry the numbers just don't add up.

Forum Surfer
Forum Surfer

People carrying AK-47's and RPG's hardly qualify as innocent. You don't have to be clad in body armor and a uniform to be part of an army. These people (radical islamists) clearly despise what we as Americans stand for...no matter what our political affiliation. However, these people have been killing themselves and fighting the Jewish people for 1000's of years and we cannot stop them through politics, sanctions or force. They only thing we can do is let them fight it out between themselves, keep them out of Isreal and make sure they keep their bloodshed to themselves. It's a war torn area and has been since biblical times and before. We need to keep out military at arms length ready to strike, but yet not forcing our hand until they attempt to lash out. IMO I feel we should take a stand somewhere not quite as hardline as Bush trying to police the state (let them kill each other off for all I care, they burn our flag in the street when we save them from their own people) but not as neglectual as the Clinton administration.

Forum Surfer
Forum Surfer

The Clinton administration was no more than a political machine. They did whatever it took to keep the votes their way without following through on much of anything. They severed communication lines between intelligence communities and were even offered Bin Laden by the Egyptian government, but wouldn't so much as hold him even though it was generally thought within intelligence circles he was responsible for small attacks against various military targets worldwide. Some may consider these view points as "stupid" or "unintelligent"...but it's my right to beleive what I want as a gun carrying, God fearing registered "Unaffiliated" American.

Popoyd
Popoyd

George H. W. Bush of course :D

Popoyd
Popoyd

Have you read the documents you reffer to? UNSC 660 was the resolution which demanded that Iraq withdraw its forces unconditionally to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990 (the day before they invaded Kuwait). 668 autorized Kuwait and allies to enforce 660. Not to invade Iraq. Resolution 1441 demanded cooperation in the WMD and other proscribed weapns programmes inspections by the UN but did not authorize war. It required a special session of the security council to authorize this - a new resolution - which never took place due to several countries, mainly France, announcing they would veto any resolution that directly led to war. There Mr. Bush attacked IN BREACH OF THE UN RESOLUTIONS.

Forum Surfer
Forum Surfer

Isn't that a pre req for running for a political office, no matter what part affiliation?

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

You regard the UN as credible? Have you been in a coma for the last 20 years? For crying out loud, the "Food for Oil" scandal made Enron look like a Nigerian letter scam. UN "reccomendations" are meaningless. However, it's resolutions are not. And the war was in compliance with the following UN resolutions: Resolution 678 passed November 29, 1990, after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. ?Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait .. to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.? Resolution 687, passed after the liberation of Kuwait, requires disarmament of Saddam Hussein and reaffirms resolution 678. Since resolution 687 reaffirms 678, and since 678 allows Member States to use ?all necessary means? to implement ?subsequent relevant resolutions?, it follows that resolution 678 allows the United States (a Member State) to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein. Resolution 1441, yet another resolution requiring Saddam to disarm, also reaffirms resolutions 678 and 687. ----- Iraq never complied by any of these and the UN affirmed them. There was never any resolution against the war. Any argument that the war was "illegal" is simply a lie that you chose to believe and repeat, regardless of the facts.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

...after the Democrats were flushed from Congress in '94, and the Clinton's economic agenda was reduced to practicing little more than Reaganomics. Oh, who get's credit for the crash of 2000 then?

cchalk
cchalk

Successful leaders dare to be unpopular when they have to make tough decisions...and they accept that there may be long periods..before the rewards of their efforts finally appear. The clintons warned Bush? Obviously they didn't have the ba!!s to do anything about it-other than to get them sucked on...I say piss on the UN, talk about corrupt...you people appear to only read tech news....Sure Bush and company have made mistakes....doubt anyone reading or posting here could do better. Half my family is military and love it that Bushs' attitude is kick a$$ now, take names later. No one has attacked us in 6+ years. As far as the rest of the world is concerned - screw them, they only have their hands out anyway...and what's up with the you're invading our privacy?? right after 9/11 people were screaming why weren't you listening, now they are screaming wha are you listening.....go figure....

ChipMicro
ChipMicro

To briefly address the off-thread political ramblings (THIS is why I vote Independent, BTW), if the President is a flaming moron as some allege, then he can't be responsible for the failure of an IT system because he'd not know how to use it to begin with. If he's IT-literate enough to be able to wholesale interfere with a recordkeeping system, including getting rid of backups the only way possible that still maintains deniability, then he can't be stupid, can he? That said, how about we focus on the real matter at hand. Take a look at this particular issue with the political wrappers gone. Most of the folks who read this will have some vulnerability in their e-mail systems, either backups that have never been tested thoroughly (just because it says it is backing up doesn't mean a good backup exists - got bit myself, once), or backups that aren't done (either aren't done at all, or a cluster that's somehow forgotten or excluded). Recycling of backup media is not at all uncommon, from the small single-box cartridges to the enterprise arrays, and even seeing a box of tapes labelled 'Monday' through 'Friday' infer that there is some sort of recycling of media going on, and how many of THOSE do we have lying around? Few outside of HIPAA-impacted firms and financial institutions have what could be called robust and thorough retention and processing of their data, especially something as out of control as e-mail. I'm not making an indictment of guilt, or a profession of innocence on behalf of those administering the systems at the White House, but what I am saying is that instead of focusing on weaknesses and fixing them, we tend to focus on the C-level folks to blame and complain about, spending all our energy griping and none of it typing. The truth of the matter is that while most C-levels have an extraordinary range of control, their technical knowledge is limited to the 50,000 foot view, far too macroscopic to grasp the more detailed issues necessary to carry the blame for the status. As an example, ask a CEO (not a CIO, who may actually know this, but you can't make the argument that the President is a CIO-equivalent, can you?) how their data is protected in the event of a drive failure, and they may well tell you about their RAID array, then reassure you that the corporate data is secure. That is the proper level of information, because the minute pieces of the operation take their focus off of the goal. If you ask them what RAID level they are running and how that works, they probably won't know. Are they optimized for speed at the sacrifice of safety? Are they getting backed-up at all? Not their department, is it? Sorry for the length, but there is a philosophical approach to IT that is neglected in the miasma of personal agendas. The bottom line is that we all need to pay attention to these types of issues and divert our attention to fixing them in our shops where our bread and butter are generated. If you ask me, a data breach affecting millions of consumers' identities and financial well-being trumps e-mails that are that old - think about it, we all know that all politicians are sell-outs and liars, because the only way to get to the point where the majority will vote for you is to delude every individual component of that majority that you will do everything for them, which is a logical and practical impossibility - so finding any e-mails just generates more business for the lawyers, gets nothing done (the first political party that can prove it's been 100% above-board at all times in all things, please chime in - better double-check first, though...) and George Bush is held up as being responsible and is getting pilloried, at least here. Carol Meyrowitz and Bernard Cammarata (CEO and Chairman of TJX, respectively) aren't, even though they held the leadership reins for TJX when the millions of people's data was stolen. What does it say about our reasoning abilities if we allow fire from the belly (politics) to rule over serious impact (identity theft)? Just a thought... Flame as you feel you must.

uberg33k50
uberg33k50

Very well said iam! Something I don't understand is IT people are generally supposed to be intelligent people...how can anyone, such as tspears, support the stupidity that has come from Washington in the last 7 years. As far as the original thread. Yeah, I think they did it intentionally but they will probably try to hang it on some low ranking tech.

amk32
amk32

As has been said in the past, I'd rather have a president who screwed an intern than a president who screwed the country. Back to the original substance of this thread - the accidental loss of the backup tapes is way too convenient to have been unintentional. And if it were truly unintentional, then it speaks clearly to the typical incompentence of the people hired by this administration to run this country (see FEMA, Justice Department, ad nauseum).

TechinMN
TechinMN

Right before the UN discussion on whether to allow US invasion, Bush was screaming that the UN needed to be supported, and its rules followed. Then the UN decided against the invasion. Then Bush ranted about how innefectual and incompetent the UN was, and that it had outlived its usefulness. That attitude pretty much set the tone for the rest of his reign, didn't it?

Popoyd
Popoyd

How about pissing all over the UN? The UN was created by the US under more enlightened leadership. It was defended and upheld by those and even other less elightened presidents. Then comes Bush, lies the country into war AGAINST the UN's reccomendations (which were to wait and verify these) making it irrelevant in a stupid tantrum. Brilliant.

iam
iam

You know that 1/3 of our population is CRAZY?

boothby
boothby

Very well said, iam, I am glad youare.

iam
iam

Right-on.

robertbrown
robertbrown

We are currently discussing events taking place under the Bush administration. Please refrain from diverting or misdirecting this thread.

Popoyd
Popoyd

Yup. That just about covers it.

iam
iam

Do you really believe that a sitting President should be impeached for covering up a PERFECTLY LEGAL ACT! A reasonable solution would be to put Bill Clinton on trial AFTER his time in office, but no, conservatives HAD to exact revenge on a Democrat because Nixon was a criminal. Now that's a real mature thing to to. Sure, Clinton lied about an affair, but bush lied us INTO WAR that killed FOUR-THOUSAND sevice men and women, killed a HALF-MILLION innocent Iraqis, wasted 1-2 TRILLION DOLLARS, destroyed the reputation of the US that MILLIONS of Americans had fought and died to establish over the last 100 years, and you compare Clinton to bush? Are you insane?

Popoyd
Popoyd

In case you forgot, the US economy was the best in decades with Clinton. The Bushes go to war to compensate their incompetence... war activates the US economy, but only temporarily and the aftermath is going to affect us for a long long time. Besides, nobody cares about the US becoming what it's supposed to be fighting? Bombing schools, hospitals and shooting innocent civilians left and right. Who are the good guys then? NOBODY beats the Bushes (hehe) in corruption and incompetence. NOBODY.

TechinMN
TechinMN

I'd say mass murder, the destruction of this nations's economy and integrity, and making the Constitution illegal and irrelevant qualifies as out-doing the Clintons. Wouldn't you say?

boothby
boothby

Hmm...I seem to recall that Bush & Co. have been in office since 2000...remember? Destroying the information on these tapes ony affects, let's see...the whole 9/11/2001 incident, the (admitedly "alleged") warnings provided by the Clinton administration to Bush about Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, etc. etc. How convenient! And as fas as proper punishment? My personal favorite is public enemas; but maybe that's just me.

iam
iam

You must be a member of the crazy third. That 1/3 rd of the country who thinks the war criminal in the White House is doing a good job. The crimes committed by the bush* madministration are epic. I just hope you are not this delusional while driving your car. Have a nice day.

richard.wilson
richard.wilson

Olympian Marion Jones gets SIX MONTHS in jail for lying to federal prosecuters about her steroid use, but Bill Clinton gets NOTHING but a slap on the wrist and his license to practice law suspended for lying to THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT! Where's the justice there?? (and by the way, if those "scum bags" should rot in Guantanamo Bay for a few decades, maybe the next terrorist suicide bomber should come visit your town and then we'll see how you feel about things...)

mabingle
mabingle

If you're going to say that Bush and Cheney are better than the Clintons I would go there if I were you. Cheney make the Clintons looks like saints and Bush..... well he's an idiot and a liar.

tspears
tspears

Clinton was impeached for perjury, not "getting a bj" (read more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton in case you've forgotten.) And besides the Clinton Administration may have been the most corrupt and generally scummy administration we've ever had, remember Vince Foster or the China scandals? It's not to say that Bush is a saint, but it takes a special kind of person to out do a Clinton when it comes to corruption or sleaziness...

swhitlow
swhitlow

I remember this issue coming up concerning some of Bill Clinton's matters. With it being prior to 2003, the only corruption being covered up is President Clinton, which again is the norm for the Clintons. Bush and Cheney have had to fix Clintons mess along with not exposing any more of his corruption.