• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,773
11
81
Front page of the NYT this morning:

Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran

(But shhhh. Don't mention Bush started it!)

WASHINGTON — From his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America’s first sustained use of cyberweapons, according to participants in the program.
Yep, Obama did it! The computer genius, hacker-in-chief! First the 1-year anniversary of the death of Osama Bin Laden, now Obama is using STUXNET and the "Olympic Games" initiative to pump up his image and campaign. Never mind the damage this will bring the US and Israel by now unofficially coming clean as the backers of STUXNET.


edit: thread title edited to title of article. Original thread title can (and is) being debated in the thread. -DrPizza
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jan 25, 2011
16,107
7,620
146
Front page of the NYT this morning:

Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran

(But shhhh. Don't mention Bush started it!)



Yep, Obama did it! The computer genius, hacker-in-chief! First the 1-year anniversary of the death of Osama Bin Laden, now Obama is using STUXNET and the "Olympic Games" initiative to pump up his image and campaign. Never mind the damage this will bring the US and Israel by now unofficially coming clean as the backers of STUXNET.
So Bush starts something that throws the country in the shitter, it's all Obama anyway... bu bu but Bush.

Now if it's the OTHER way...
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,652
199
101
Just like with OBL, obummer loves to take credit for other people's accomplishments, but is also the first to point the finger at someone else for his own failures.
 

crashtestdummy

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2010
2,894
0
0
I'm confused. So it's Obama who publishes the New York Times?

Also, if you read the article, it spends a lot more time talking about Bush than it does Obama. (I'm really thankful, BTW, that Bush was president and not Cheney--Cheney looks like he was itching for another war.)
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,033
64
91
How is the President responsible for this article? It says right in the article that the US has never admitted deploying any cyber-attacks, and he is not a source in the article or in David Sanger's book. That's like saying Nixon was taking credit for Watergate because Woodward and Bernstein wrote about it, relying on inside sources.

The OP's thread title is completely misleading, as is his sarcastic commentary that the article gives President Obama all the credit for this program - in fact it makes it clear that this began under President Bush. You Republicans would do yourselves a favor by dropping the faux outrage/drama queen routine. You just sound like whiners.
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,963
3,752
126
How is the President responsible for this article? It says right in the article that the US has never admitted deploying any cyber-attacks, and he is not a source in the article or in David Sanger's book. That's like saying Nixon was taking credit for Watergate because Woodward and Bernstein wrote about it, relying on inside sources.

The OP's thread title is completely misleading, as is his sarcastic commentary that the article gives President Obama all the credit for this program - in fact it makes it clear that this began under President Bush. You Republicans would do yourselves a favor by dropping the faux outrage/drama queen routine. You just sound like whiners.
It is documented that conservatives have larger fear centers in their brains than liberals do and I would suggest that fear causes the drama you see. Folk get very nasty to things that scare them. Right wing propaganda plays on and amplifies this fear creating armies of marching frightened people who have become extremely mean.
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Just like with OBL, obummer loves to take credit for other people's accomplishments, but is also the first to point the finger at someone else for his own failures.
Just like GTaudiophile, you love to attack Obama without having a clue what you're talking about. Obama was not at all involved in this New York Times article.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,917
173
106
How is the President responsible for this article?
-snip-
It's clear from the article that sources in his admin were leaking info about this.

It also quite obvious this was done to bolster his imagine.

Anybody else find it curious this info hits the newspaper at precisely the same time as bad economic news? The obvious should be obvious.

Fern
 

sunzt

Diamond Member
Nov 27, 2003
3,079
3
81
Just like with OBL, obummer loves to take credit for other people's accomplishments, but is also the first to point the finger at someone else for his own failures.
How is OBL not to obama's credit? He made getting OBL the top priority, he had to decide out of several different options to pursue OBL after they found his location, and he had to make the decision to NOT work with the Pakistani's in the night raid. Did Bush tell him to do all of that?

Would Romney have:
1) made OBL top priority
2) decide to go on a extremely ballsy decision to do a night raid vs other options such as bombing the place
3) not work with the pakistani intelligence agency or inform them on the night raid

Obama was faced all those decisions. I highly doubt Romney would even get pass #1.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Anybody else find it curious this info hits the newspaper at precisely the same time as bad economic news?
Yes, it's amazing that this came out between 2008 and years from now.

While I've named you the forum's biggest apologist, you attack when it comes to Obama.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
16,901
4,657
136
It's clear from the article that sources in his admin were leaking info about this.

It also quite obvious this was done to bolster his imagine.

Anybody else find it curious this info hits the newspaper at precisely the same time as bad economic news? The obvious should be obvious.

Fern
Well what else is he supposed to do. Can't raise the homeland security alert level to orange anymore like someone else used to do for the same reason.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
It's clear from the article that sources in his admin were leaking info about this.

It also quite obvious this was done to bolster his imagine.

Anybody else find it curious this info hits the newspaper at precisely the same time as bad economic news? The obvious should be obvious.

Fern
This "info" hit the newspaper at precisely the same time ... as the book from which it is taken is being released (June 5, specifically). Now I'll admit I've never been a book publisher, but I'm pretty sure book release dates are set months in advance, not a day or two before a poor jobs report is revealed. Sanger may well have timed the book to coincide with the election season, but to insinuate this was timed to cover bad financial news is not only nonsensical, but petty partisanship at its worst. Shame on you.

It's also noteworthy that contrary to the dishonest, blatantly partisan spin of the OP, this article talks about Bush at least as much as Obama. It also makes no suggestion whatsoever that Obama had any hands-on involvement, contrary to the OP's snark, but he was apparently directly involved in reviewing status and setting direction as the program progressed. So yes, Obama does deserve some credit, as does Bush for authorizing the program in the first place.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
It is documented that conservatives have larger fear centers in their brains than liberals do and I would suggest that fear causes the drama you see. Folk get very nasty to things that scare them. Right wing propaganda plays on and amplifies this fear creating armies of marching frightened people who have become extremely mean.
Its funny how liberals own fear centers go into over drive when someone dares to question their opinions or their own imagined political demigod they have created in their minds.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,831
13,980
136
It's clear from the article that sources in his admin were leaking info about this.

It also quite obvious this was done to bolster his imagine.

Anybody else find it curious this info hits the newspaper at precisely the same time as bad economic news? The obvious should be obvious.

Fern
According to the piece itself, it took the author 18 months to gather the info. The timing of release was up to him & the NYT, not the Obama Admin. Nice try, though.

Oh, and it may be timed to bolster the US position in ongoing talks with Iran, too, but it probably just happened when it happened, when the author finished the story.
 
Last edited:

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,798
354
126
So... is there to be any discussion on the actual meat of this piece? That being partial state-sponsored cyber-warfare and the US being involved in the creation and start of a whole new dawn for petty political pissing matches that involves all of us?

One way or the other, imho, this was destined and I've seen it coming for awhile now. I am not entirely surprised by the notion that the US is officially (unofficially) engaging in such activities, and in some ways, it's pretty damn awesome our people are [partially] responsible for the most sophisticated malware thus far.
But as the NYT article points out, our infrastructure is very vulnerable, to some degrees. Some more than others, perhaps, but being entirely privately-run, security will be hit and miss. How long until counter-attacks result in damage to our own critical infrastructure?

Mind you, my commentary isn't in any ways meant to serve as a negative opinion to either President/administration, nor to point blame for future issues on our government. I've been a thorough believer in "cyber warfare" being very much in our near-future, and these sorts of attacks are/were basically guarandamnteed. With all the political pissing matches, the increasing reliance on the internet and global communications - and let's not forget our lust for conflict - ultimately demanded the secret activities of yesteryear spilled over into the digital domain. Then there's the fact that, if the precedent of those previously-mentioned secret activities stands, these activities could very well serve to spark new physical conflicts.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY