The (temporary) home of practical progressives

Monday, August 14, 2006

Apologies

From a Lamont press release, utterly ignored by the right-wing media:

On Tuesday, the day Lamont beat incumbent Joseph Lieberman in an election with record turnout for the Democratic nomination, Lieberman’s campaign began accusing Lamont of hacking into his web site, issuing a press release and trumpeting the charge to numerous reporters and accusing its opponent of interfering with an election.

"These are very serious charges, absolutely untrue, and a desperate attempt to divert attention from the Senator’s own record—and from the fact that he is ignoring the will of the voters and running under his own ‘Just for Lieberman’ banner," said Lamont spokeswoman Liz Dupont-Diehl. "The Lieberman campaign has spread deliberately false and slanderous lies about our campaign. There are no facts to back their claims and they should apologize – and they should be held accountable for pressing false charges."

..."We welcome investigations by the FBI and the Attorney General, as they will prove our campaign had nothing whatsoever to do with this," she added. "And we hope that anyone in the Lieberman campaign found guilty of making false charges is prosecuted to the full extent of the law."

Exactly right. Someone owes someone an apology. But you know it just ain't gonna happen. After all, an apology would be seen as a victory to the kind of people who tried to bring down those planes a few days ago. And these Lieberman people don't seem like the type to admit mistakes.

Oh, I forgot. Dan Gerstein fully explained the terrorists-support-Lamont line. Lieberman was just differentiating his ideas from Lamont's. We Lamont supporters really need to stop listening to the actual words coming out of Joe's mouth and concentrate on Gerstein's spin of them, I guess.

13 Comments:

Blogger cacambo said...

Gotta dissent from you here, my friend. There's no evidence either way about why Lieberman's site crashed when it did. At first, Kos and Co. accused him of not paying up his hosting account. When it turned out that certainly was not the case, the charge shifted to Lieberman being too cheap to pay for a higher-quality server. Maybe, but most analysis I've seen indicates that it's unlikely the server activity would have been enough to cause an overload.

Whatever the underlying cause, the timing of the crash (the day before the polls opened) is highly suspicious. It's hardly a waste of taxpayer money to run an investigation - it's probably just one guy working on the case in his free time. It's not like they'd pull people from terrorist watches for this.

Hacking seem like a strong possibility, and it's the FBI's job to investigate possible cases like this to see if there's any evidence.

I agree with you on one point - Lieberman should apologize for insinuating that the Lamont campaign could somehow be responsible. If it is a hack job, it's clear that it was someone independent of the Lamont campaign. For that, Lieberman owes him an apology.

Lieberman's camp is wrong for accusing Lamont of being responsible. Lamont's camp is wrong for accusing Lieberman of taxpayer waste for daring to ask someone to look into the crashing of his site. Speculation is the enemy of truth, and both sides would do well to remember that. I think everyone should wait until the facts come in before jumping to any more conclusions.

9:50 AM

 
Blogger Sundog said...

"There's no evidence either way about why Lieberman's site crashed when it did."

Exactly. That's my whole point. You don't throw around serious charges until the facts bubble to the surface.

And sorry, but as I've said before, running to the cops before you look at the log files is the sort of newbie screwup that gets people fired.

No other way to look at it. Lieberman's camp was wrong to throw out wild charges before the facts were in. It's as simple as that.

10:25 AM

 
Blogger Sundog said...

I have a possible theory. It sounds from press reports as though the webmaster - name slips my mind - was pretty certain in his own mind immediately (without any cause yet) that it was a DOS attack. If he communicated just that to the campaign, not adding the caveat that he wasn't certain yet, the campaign could be excused for taking him at his word. Obviously they trust his expertise or they wouldn't employ him.

Even if that's true, and I only advance it as a possible explanation, throwing around the charge that Lamont's campaign was directly responsible simply had no basis in fact, a fact Gerstein was forced to admit later in the day. You simply don't throw charges around like that recklessly. "Oh, well, the FBI will sort it all out" is just not a tenable position.

I consider each of the following scenarios equally likely: that it was some scriptkiddy or someone not far above that level, or it was in fact not any sort of breakin at all. What if it WAS some kid who thought he was stupidly helping the Lamont cause? In what universe is it reasonable to hold the Lamont campaign responsible for such a thing?

12:22 PM

 
Blogger cacambo said...

That was my point :).

12:24 PM

 
Blogger Sundog said...

Now there ya lost me!

The press release's whole point is that serious charges shouldn't be hurled around without any facts. If you agree, I'm not sure from where the dissent arises.

The point of the press release is NOT to say there wasn't a breakin; I consider that somewhat likely. It was to object to Lieberman's camp using it - on election day - as political fodder against Lamont.

I want to see the log files myself. I'll bet a lot of sysadmins would.

12:48 PM

 
Blogger cacambo said...

My dissent was from the charge that Lieberman was wasting taxpayer money by asking the FBI to investigate. I think that asking the FBI to look into was a perfectly reasonable course of action, particularly since checking computer log files and researching who is at particular IP addresses is all that's required, which require minimal effort for the FBI, but could be difficult (particularly researching IP addresses) for the Lieberman campaign to do on their own.

I do agree that they were quite wrong to insinuate that the Lamont campaign was somehow involved, and think an apology would be in order there.

12:54 PM

 
Blogger Gary Sartori said...

What the hell is Lamont going to say?? Yes, my campaign staff did it!! No. Of course he's going to issue a denial. As for Lieberman issuing an apology, Joe will apologize as soon as Jane Hamsher apologizes for her blackface imitation of Lieberman during the primary. After all, fair is fair. Right sundog??

6:47 PM

 
Blogger SeedFreak said...

The more minutes, hours and days it takes to investigate, the worse it is for the hacker and co-conspirators. If one of Lamont's supporters/bloggers made the hack then Lamont--who is attached by an umbilical cord to them--has got some serious spinning ahead of him.

Ned "I don't know about blogs" Lamont, is likely wishing he really didn't.

tick, Tick, TICK.

7:15 PM

 
Anonymous rachelrachel said...

The campaign is nasty on both sides, and I understand why partisans of either side will tend to blast the side they dislike and overlook what their own side is doing.

From the Lamont press release, quoted by Sundog:

On Tuesday, the day Lamont beat incumbent Joseph Lieberman in an election with record turnout for the Democratic nomination, Lieberman’s campaign began accusing Lamont of hacking into his web site, issuing a press release and trumpeting the charge to numerous reporters and accusing its opponent of interfering with an election.

Now, where does Lieberman's campaign accuse Lamont?

From a news story:

"This type of dirty politics has been a staple of the Lamont campaign from the beginning, from the nonstop personal attacks to the intimidation tactics and offensive displays to these coordinated efforts to disable our Web site," said Smith in a statement e-mailed to reporters Monday evening.

"There is no place for these Rovian tactics in Democratic politics, and we demand that our opponent call off his supporters and their online attack dogs."

It's the "supporters and their online attack dogs" who are accused of doing the deed, not Lamont or anybody officially linked to the campaign. "Supporters" can be almost anybody, and if foul play was involved it's likely it came from somebody sympathetic to Lamont.

Nowhere do they, as the Lamont folks would have you believe, that the Lieberman campaign accused Lamont himself of the hacking.

9:30 PM

 
Anonymous rachelrachel said...

Oh, I forgot. Dan Gerstein fully explained the terrorists-support-Lamont line.

Lieberman never said that the terrorists supported Lamont, or even that they were aware of his existence.

Lieberman was just differentiating his ideas from Lamont's.

Of course, that's exactly what he was doing.


We Lamont supporters really need to stop listening to the actual words coming out of Joe's mouth and concentrate on Gerstein's spin of them, I guess.

Why don't you listen to what comes out of Joe's mouth? Here's what he said that got Ned so upset:

“If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England,” Mr. Lieberman said at a campaign event in Waterbury, Conn. “It will strengthen them, and they will strike again.”

The senator is laying out what he thinks would be the consequences of his opponent's policies. You can agree or disagree, but since when is discussion of policy off-limits? These are exactly the sort of things that should be discussed. A serious response from Ned would be to explain how and why he disagreed. Instead, this is what we get:

My God, here we have a terrorist threat against hearth and home and the very first thing that comes out of their mind is how can we turn this to partisan advantage. I find that offensive," Lamont said in an interview Sunday with The Associated Press.

Not a word of response to the substance of Mr. Lieberman's remarks, or at least none that were quoted in the article. Not exactly the best response if you're trying to convince voters you're serious about national security.

9:58 PM

 
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Excellent post Rachel!

5:03 AM

 
Anonymous cfaller96 said...

rachelrachel said:
Not a word of response to the substance of Mr. Lieberman's remarks

But that assumes there was any substance to Lieberman's remarks to begin with, rachel. It assumes that what Joe Lieberman said dignified a response. Here is what he said:

If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England

I read the substance like this: "if we set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the British terrorists win." That's absurd and false to the point that, in my opinion, it doesn't deserve a rebuttal. (Feel free to offer your own interpretation of the "substance" of Lieberman's remarks).

Here goes a rebuttal, anyway. The terrorists in Britain don't win if the US withdraws from Iraq. The US presence in Iraq doesn't (positively) affect efforts to stop a terrorist group in Britain. I dare say the British terrorists don't give a s--t about the US presence in Iraq, but I'm just guessing.

There- was that really necessary? Do we (and Ned Lamont) really need to constantly explain why continuing the Iraq War does not reduce (and may in fact increase) terrorism, in the US or in Britain? Did Joe Lieberman's remarks really deserve a response?

3:18 PM

 
Anonymous cfaller96 said...

cacambo said:
Lieberman should apologize for insinuating that the Lamont campaign could somehow be responsible

Just my opinion, but it was more than an insinuation, and it had no basis in fact, and as of now still doesn't. Where I come from, it's called slander. Or was it a written press release? Then it's libel.

3:19 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home