After two reports of massive security lapses in two months, will the media begin to question Bush's national security record?
SUMMARY: Now that it has been reported twice in the past two months that lapses in security placed the personal information of millions of veterans and the integrity of the FBI's computer system in jeopardy, will the media finally begin to question the national security credentials of the Bush White House and Republicans?
On July 6, The Washington Post reported that"[a] government consultant, using computer programs easily found on the Internet, managed to crack the FBI's classified computer system and gain the passwords of 38,000 employees, including that of FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III." This article followed the Post's May 23 report that "[a]s many as 26.5 million veterans were placed at risk of identity theft when intruders stole an electronic data file this month containing their names, birth dates and Social Security numbers from the home of a Department of Veterans Affairs employee."
As Media Matters for America has noted, the conventional wisdom among the media is that the Bush administration and Republicans are "stronger" on national security issues than are Democrats, and this narrative has endured despite abundant evidence of lapses and missteps. Now that it has been reported twice in the past two months that lapses in security placed the personal information of millions of veterans and the integrity of the FBI's computer system in jeopardy, will the media finally begin to question the national security credentials of the White House and the GOP?
The Post reported on July 6 that, in 2004, a consultant working for the FBI easily and inappropriately gained access to "records in the Witness Protection Program and details on counterespionage activity," and that this was not the first major obstacle the FBI has encountered in bringing its computer systems up to date. According to the Post:
The break-ins, which occurred four times in 2004, gave the consultant access to records in the Witness Protection Program and details on counterespionage activity, according to documents filed in U.S. District Court in Washington. As a direct result, the bureau said it was forced to temporarily shut down its network and commit thousands of man-hours and millions of dollars to ensure no sensitive information was lost or misused.
The government does not allege that the consultant, Joseph Thomas Colon, intended to harm national security. But prosecutors said Colon's "curiosity hacks" nonetheless exposed sensitive information.
Colon, 28, an employee of BAE Systems who was assigned to the FBI field office in Springfield, Ill., said in court filings that he used the passwords and other information to bypass bureaucratic obstacles and better help the FBI install its new computer system. And he said agents in the Springfield office approved his actions.
The incident is only the latest in a long string of foul-ups, delays and embarrassments that have plagued the FBI as it tries to update its computer systems to better share tips and information. Its computer technology is frequently identified as one of the key obstacles to the bureau's attempt to sharpen its focus on intelligence and terrorism.
On May 23, the Post reported that a laptop computer and an external hard drive containing veterans' personal data were stolen on May 3, and that the employee from whom the information was stolen was not authorized to take the data home. According to the Post:
The theft represents the biggest unauthorized disclosure ever of Social Security data, and it could make affected veterans vulnerable to credit card fraud if the burglars realize the value of the data, one expert said.
"In terms of Social Security numbers, it's the biggest breach," said Evan Hendricks, publisher of the Privacy Times newsletter and author of the book "Credit Scores and Credit Reports." "As long as you've got that exact Social, most of the time the credit bureaus will disclose your credit report, and that enables the thief to get credit."
For years, the VA inspector general has criticized the department for lax information security, chiefly concerning the ease with which hackers might penetrate VA computer systems. "VA has not been able to effectively address its significant information security vulnerabilities and reverse the impact of its historically decentralized management approach," acting Inspector General Jon A. Wooditch wrote in a November 2005 report.
Democrats on the House Veterans Affairs Committee issued a statement calling on the department to restrict access to sensitive information to essential personnel and to enforce those restrictions. "It is a mystifying and gravely serious concern that a VA data analyst would be permitted to just walk out the VA door with such information," the statement said. Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho), chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, said his panel will hold hearings on information security at the department.
The Post reported on June 30 that the laptop and hard drive had been recovered, and that the data had apparently not been accessed.
Most likely, the press will be vilified for even reporting these lapses. After all, revealing the ineptitude of the Puddinhead George Junta only emboldens the turrists.
And a second for the lapdog nature of the press.
I'll let Bush Co. record speak for itself, plenty of facts there, no vote necessary.
realize these specific type of issues are a non-partisan problem. Our countries computer related security has been abysmal at best for some time.
Consider Gary McKinnon: he's the British "hacker" who gained access to the US military computer network using elementary methods which most real hackers consider child's play (in other words most other real "hackers" wouldn't consider him a hacker at all)
[link to news.bbc.co.uk]
Gary gained access to the U.S. military network two months into Bush's presidency, in what they are calling the "biggest military hack of all time". (Even though I believe that's a bit exaggerated myself)
Point is, two months into his administration is hardly enough time for Bush's influence to "degrade" the network security to this level. No, this was a problem well before the Bush administration and one he has inhereted.
However, It's also exactly the kind of stuff I'd expect to be misunderstood by the general public and used by the media in just the manner this article suggests.
this not speaking of the incidents themselves so much as how the 'media' is framing or spinning or ignoring aspects of the stories. Bottom line, THIS IS NOT A NEWS SITE
one more time : THIS IS NOT A NEWS SITE
once more for effect : THIS IS NOT A NEWS SITE
nor does it pretend to be, it is a site to analyze how the news is produced and used.
I don't think I missed the point at all. I never claimed MMFA was a news site.. however they appear to be calling for news sites to portray this as Republican security issue. Should this be addressed.. yes I consider it a serious issue. Should it be framed that it's a "Republican's now weak on security issue?" That's the part I disagree with.
In addition, if the Dem's want to use this as a part of their election strategy promising network security reform.. I am all for it. But for them to start portraying (or calling for the media to do so) that it as a problem created by the Bush administration... sorry that's disingenuous at best.
the fact is the incident you cited did in fact happen on dumbaya's watch, were the conditions in place long before, most likely all the way back to Rummy Ronnies term? Sure was. but the FACT is that this was not compromised until after dumbaya took office, soooooo whuile is is not to blame for it taking place, he IS responsible for the after non-reaction and failure to properly review and tightne it up. Sorry if you cannot see that with repubs controlling all 3 houses, it IS at this point a 'republican issue'.
just as dumbaya ignoring all the warnings about OBL prior to 9/11 is also a republican 'issue'.
We all know Bush's record on his presidential "inheritance": utter failure.
He inherited the Al Qaeda problem and waited till 3,000 people were dead to give a damn about that, then he started TWO wars over it, both executed without a clear exit strategy or any kind of discernable plan besides “be there forever” at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.
He inherited the US GOVT's foot-dragging on rebuilding the levies in New Orleans then hired some geeks who cannot flip on CNN, as I did, and see that there’s a C5 hurricane bearing down on NO, so that's another 1,500 bodies on the pile.
He inherited the largest surplus EVER and gave it away to rich people and wealthy corporations via tax breaks, and continues to borrow to give them more money then dares to call that a “fiscal and economic policy” rather than the accepted moniker for when the government gives people money for nothing: WELFARE.
Then there's this computer security thing, which, when weighed against all of the above, is classifiable under codename: BFD. It's so small a screw up I have a difficult time caring. At least nobody died. Yet.
Best of luck to the next president in undoing all of Bush's damage, which is for the most part irreparable, so forget I mentioned it. I'm sure Bush, true of any nincompoop, has already pushed it out of his mind.
I don't view this particular issue as damage that "Bush did".. I view it as a historical systemic problem that needs fixing. Maybe they didn't do anything to fix it after they inherited it, but keeping it status quo != making the problem worse. The problem's been there.. these are the symptoms that we've are aware of. If so called "hackers" like Gary could get access to the military computers with such rudimentary tactics, what about all the smarter ones that we don't know about because they were good enough not to get caught?
Honestly I guess it doesn't matter.. as I said before the public is pretty ignorant when it comes to these type of matters so the Democrats can probably frame it however they want.. but also honestly the Democrats don't have a very good track record with this either.
should have been "that we're aware of"..
I agree that it's easy to make too much of these individual items with respect to the administration's culpabililty. The VA incident is especially the type of security issue I would not expect to be anywhere on the President's radar beforehand. So, in discussing these items on an individual basis, I agree with you.
However, I believe there is a context in which these items become relevant to a discussion of this adminstration's incompetence. Specifically, consider the type of people the adminstration has placed in positions of authority within the HSA, FEMA, CIA, etc etc ad naseum. Consider their actions, or more importantly the lack thereof, to address obvious security problems post-9/11. In that context, I believe these incidents, while not individually important, do in aggregate with other incidents, demonstrate incompetence on the part of Bush political appointees...something for which Bush is culpable.
Simple answer: NO.
In every single thing he has ever done why would anyone expect National Security to be the only exception?
The biggest measure of Bushs National Security record is whether or not the US has been hit by another terrorist attack since 9/11 and the answer so far has been no.
I can't believe you guys are still trying to float that one. Okay, okay...go ahead...tell us how we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here...go ahead!
Glad I could give you a laugh. I suppose you think we haven't stopped a single plot against us in the past 5 years?
The Bush Propaganda team assures us that they have stopped several attacks. I guess we have to take them at their word. What we don't know is how serious or how viable those plots were. What we don't know is if they were foiled due to Bush's brilliance, or just hard work by our police, FBI, etc. What we don't know is if Osama Bin Ladin has even wanted to hit us again since 9/11. If he really wanted to hit us again, could we stop him? What do you think?
And, while you're at it, maybe you can explain how our fiasco in Iraq has made us any safer over here. I have yet to hear a Bush apologist explain that.
Either way, so what?
How many terrorist attack have occured post-9/11? Do you exclude attacks in Iraq against U.S. troops? What about the anthrax mailings or the guy who drove his car into a bunch of students? Are those too minor to count?
Even if the answer is zero, shouldn't we ask if there's a causal relationship between our intelligence efforts and the record? Is it fair to ask if one attack has been prevented as a result of U.S. intelligence efforts? Shouldn't we question the effectiveness of intelligence programs that seem to pose more a threat to our own liberties than to terrorists?
Along that line, do a search on the web for TSA no-fly list horror stories. Some are funny, e.g., infants being restricted from flying. ("Don't say the baby's name!" --MP) Some, e.g., [link to www.boston.com] , are not funny.
IMO, by definition terrorist attacks are primarily against civilians which differentiates them from military attacks, so I would not classify the attacks against our troops in Iraq as terrorist attacks although they may be carried out by terrorists who also do other cowardly things such as suicide bombings and car bombing in civilian areas.
As for our reduction in liberties, I don't see that our government has done anything to cause a significant reduction in our liberties. If you can give me a specific example I will give it some thought. The only thing I have noticed as an inconvenience is the airport security issue, which I hope you would agree makes sense based on what happened.
Was put in jail for three years with no access to a lawyer and told he would NOT be charged or brought to trial. I sure miss my sixth amendment
To summarize the article, a pilot lost his job because his name appeared on the TSA no-fly list, no due process and no additional explanation provided. Of course, that's just one example out of many such no-fly list intances. Can that be any more obvious?
Do you suppose the warrantless wiretap and phone record search programs are better run than the no-fly list? or do you think they're probably also violating individual civil rights?
I recently heard a funny comment my friend read on a blog somewhere and it said "my skin is made of tiger repellent. How do I know that, because I've never been attacked by a tiger. You're correct we havn't had another attack that is true, but 911 was shear luck for the terrorist because our government was not paying attention and maybe if the the Bush administration had paid heed to the warnings left by the previous administration and Gary Hart's committee 911 wouldn't have been so easy to pull off. But if you're going to credit Bush with the fact that we have not had another attack then you would blame him for the 911 attack since that happened on his watch after he was WARNED that "they were determined to attack in the US" and possibly highjack planes.
I don't blame Bush for 9/11 any more than I blame Clinton for it. After all, Al Queda attacked us based on U.S. policies they didn't like, and since they were planning the attack prior to Bush coming into office, then it had to be Clintons policies they opposed. He gave them the reason, using some peoples logic (not mine).
No, I blame Al Queda plain and simple. They drew it up and executed it, it was their doing. This has always been my point on terrorists.
blame Al-Queda as well and I'm sure Al-Queda hates Clinton and Bush equally as they do all Americans. I was specifically talking about the security issue you brought up. You are giving Bush high praises for the fact that there hasn't been another attack, yet preceding 911 Bush was warned about an imminent attack and was advised that security should be tightened. I'm just saying that he should have heeded the initial warnings from the Clinton administration and the advice received from the security commission that Gary Hart headed. If they are now so successful at thwarting post 911 attacks wouldn't they have been as successful at thwarting 911 if they had acted on the warnings they received. I'm following your logic on this one.
I don't know the answer to the question. The 911 Commission looked into it and noted some failures while at the same time did not specifically hold the administration responsible for it. It's always easy to look back after the fact and see evidence that should have been noted as serious. I don't disagree that mistakes were made on many levels, I'm just pointing out that things seem to have improved since then, although nobody around here will acknowledge it.
terrorist attack that killed about 3000 people is no problem since ANOTHER hasnt happened yet it proves something? Wow. You guys really know how to grade a conservative according to diminished expectations. I mean he was only being TOLD things like BEN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK IN US. His response? He was pissed that the guy disturbed his vacation and told him OK you have covered your ass then spent the rest of the day fishing and the rest of the month on the longest presidential vacation since NIXON. Even though he had only been in office seven months. I would like a job where I got a six week vacation after seven months. He was getting terrorism breifings described as HAIR ON FIRE breifings and he had a terrorist task force which NEVER MET A SINGLE TIME. Yeah he has done a great job. Let me sell you my polar bear charm. The proof it works is that for the 8 years I have had it here in Arizona I have NEVER been attacked by a polar bear.
What free press?
Will the PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR HIM begin to question Bush on National Security issues. The stories will be touched on and abandoned by the media as it is not in their interests to harp on them. It is the slumbering herd in this country that needs to understand the levels of corruption and incompetence so prevelant in our current government and rise up against their own manipulation. The problem I see is the lack of viable solutions as many key Democrats are not much different than their Repub counterparts.
Is more upset that Britney Spears is appearing nude on a magazine cover than they could ever be about Bush's idiotic policies.
The Chimpster will have to do something simple and stupid, like having an affair, to lose their support.
...the result is repeated references to the "foiled plot" regarding either the Lincoln or Holland Tunnel. The media has made a clear choice to focus on one (1) "success" rather than the other instances of failure.
Dubya says, "I don't think anyone anticipated the breech of our computer security system . . ."
of Bushs National Security record is whether or not the US has been hit by another terrorist attack since 9/11 and the answer so far has been no." - Bruce1Ace
Umm, no . . . the BIG measure of Bush's National Security record is the fact that, with all the rhetoric about "fighting the terrorists over there, so we don't have to fight them over here," he feels the need to spy on US citizens without authorization, "over here" . . .
The BIGGER measure of Bush's National Security record is the fact that he preferred to go barbeque in Crawford than to pay much attention to the 8/6/01 PDB entitled "bin Laden determined to strike US" . . .
And the BIGGEST measure of Bush's National Security record is the fact that he continued to sit on his hindparts and read fiction to bunch of second-graders with a blank look on his face as an aide tells him the nation's capital and largest city were under attack.
...and the biggest measure of the average neocon's political acumen is that they voted for Bush...twice.
Vote for Bush once and I can blame Bush, but vote for Bush twice and all blame falls on the voters. I just wish all the debt that Bush has incurred would also fall on those that voted for him.
As long as we're using terrorist attacks as measures of success, somebody please remind me: how many times was the U.S. hit by al Qaeda during Clinton's presidency?
Some of the right wing will instantly respond with the first WTC bombing on 26 Feb. 1993, barely a month into Clinton's presidency . . . although the mastermind behind it, Ramzi Yousef, had only a tenuous connection to al Qaeda, at best {in a 1997 interview, OBL said he didn't know him.}
In any case, I don't recall anyone in the Clinton administration blaming the elder Bush's administration for that attack . . .
It is blatanly false to claim that we haven't been hit by a terrorist attack since 9/11/01. What do you call the anthrax attack? It is funny how this so-called "liberal press" has completely ignored the anthrax incidents. I hear the media make the same claim as Bruce all of the time. The purpose of terrorism is to create fear within the population. That is exactly what happened, and no one has yet been caught.
I do agree with Bruce that attacks against the military should not be called terrorism. It aggrevates me when I hear the right wingers call attacks such as the one on the USS Cole a terrorist attack. It is funny how the enemy is always a terrorist, but the US can never be called such.
I consider the bombing of innocent civilians an act of terrorism. What do you call the attack on Iran Flight 655? Imagine what would happen if a foreign government shot down an American passenger plane.