Oh c’mon, Unc. You really think both Tom DeLay’s and Tom Daschle’s office computers, which are surely our tax dollars at work, are never used for partisan purposes?
Congressional computers are, I’m sure, ‘co-opted’ for partisan purposes by both parties on a daily basis, since every member of Congress is simultaneously part of government and a member of (or in Jeffords’ case, affiliated with) a political party. Are they expected to leave their offices and go somewhere else to consider how to pass a bill the other party’s against, or block a bill the other party is for? Seems pretty absurd to me.
Good. I want access to Wolfie’s and Ashcroft’s computers. (I won’t bother with Bush’s computer; it probably doesn’t have much besides FreeCell and Minesweeper.)
And how much of all of this was known within two months of the initial reporting of the break-in by the Washington Post? I believe the first mention of Republican staffer involvement was by an AP story dated 11/25/04 (carried by MSNBC, CBS, SFGate.com and few others), so it hasn’t been that long since this first came to light.
Do you know for a fact that these kinds of correspondence are not allowed? How would Senators of the same party serving on the judiciary committee communicate electronically about committee business? Why has not one single news piece on this story stated that these items should not have been on the server in the first place (this is NOT the same as any “official business” vs. “unofficial business” distinction, btw.)? If there had been any inappropriate server use by Democratic Party members or their staff, don’t you think Hatch would have mentioned it? It certainly would have been a better defense tactic for that idiotic Manuel C. Miranda, instead of suggesting that the memos were “inadvertent disclosures that came to me as a result of some negligence on the part of the Democrats’ technology staff.” (a “memo that came to me”???)
It’s certainly slimy and quite possibly criminal. Will there be fallout? Hardly. The Sergeant at Arms will most likely conduct a fair and impartial report, conclude various ethical and perhaps criminal violations but that will be the last we hear of it (just like that lower level aide in Condi Rice’s office who took the blame for the Uranium claim inclusion in last year’s SOTU; he’s still at the NSA’s office, isn’t he?)
The “liberal” media isn’t reporting it much and the Boston Globe story linked by the OP is, IMO, sloppy and a bit lazy in its reporting. Not a good sign.
My apologies for a very late reply. I’ve been away through the weekend. Thanks for your patience.
No, I’m quite certain that the Republicans use these federally owned computers for Party purposes just as often as the Dems. Where did you get the idea that I was concerned only about one Party? I certainly didn’t make that distinction anywhere; I merely said that use of federal property for Party purposes is, or should be, illegal. I, in fact, believe it is illegal, but I don’t have anything to support that belief, other than fuzzy memories of a number of political hacks getting in trouble for using their federal- (or state-) supplied office equipment for fund-raising activities and I guess that’s not quite an identical situation.
But ya know, RTF, this response of yours strikes me as exactly the same thing many of the liberals and Democrats here decry when conservatives and Republicans attempt to defend the actions and policies of Dubya’s administration by claiming that Clinton, or some other elected Democrat, can be shown to have engaged in the same, or similar, activities. It’s a bogus defense then, and it’s a bogus defense now. I kinda figured somone here would make a claim similar to this, although didn’t expect it would be you, Rufus; it’s rather beneath my assessment of you.
Please. You’re a smart fellow, RTF. You know as well as I do that this isn’t necessary. You’re trying to create a problem where one doesn’t exist, or inflate the situtation to an absurd point. I’m not talking about holding meetings, or simple telephone conversations. Those are intangible things that cannot be “stored” in any accessible fashion by mechanical means and thus don’t consume finite resources. Data generated as a result of these things are - telephone conversation records, e-mail chains, memos, strategy letters, etc., have a physical component - they’re stored on paper and/or on a hard drive somewhere. hese are the types of things, when they’re employed as a tool for one Party to gain advantage over another, I’m speaking of, and it’s a very simple task to enable a computer to log on to several distinct networks even simultaneously.
Granted there’s a fuzzy line that must be drawn here, and I will admit that upon further reflection, it might be a more difficult task than I first supposed. But we should still be capable of drawing some kind of line somewhere. I don’t think it should be impossible for our elected officials to determine a line, which when crossed, would move them from doing “The People’s” business, to doing Party business. In fact, if these folks were honest with themselves, had some objective integrity, and didn’t rationalize their actions, it would be patently obvious whose business they are engaged in at any particular moment. Of course, that would assume that honesty and integrity are incumbent among the characters of most politicians; a rather optimistic assumption from where I sit.
El Gui, I think my response to RTF above substantially covers your objections, too. If there’s anything critical I’ve overlooked, please point it out to me, and I’ll try to explain my view.