the most influential Internet moments of the past 10 years

Dotcom boom and bust tops list of Internet watersheds - Yahoo! News: "NEW YORK (AFP)

- The breaking of the Monica Lewinsky scandal [in 1998 was].... voted among the most influential Internet moments of the past 10 years by organisers of the annual Webby Awards."

The second most influential moment voted by the committee came in 1998 when the "The Drudge Report" -- a then little-known, one-man news site -- beat the mainstream media in breaking the scandal of Lewinsky's affair

Confused about the CIA leak case? Start here. Christian Science Monitor

~~Nice article here below , for those who have not followed Plame-gate from its start.

Looks like 'Libby' -- the Vice Presidential Chief of Staff-- will be indicted for lying during the investigation.

At least Bill Clinton only lied about haveing sex.

Libby may have lied to obstruct the truth on matters of national-- and even global --- security.

Why ? To protect a calculated lie the President G.W. Bush made during the 2003 State of the Union address. Read below for more.~~ ~ ` TP

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

The Christian Science Monitor, Fri Oct 28:

"Confused about the CIA leak case? Start here."

By Linda Feldmann, Staff writer of The Christian Science MonitorFri Oct 28, 4:00 AM ET

For almost two years, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has led an investigation to determine whether anyone acted illegally when the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame was made public. After hearing testimony from some of Washington's most powerful figures, a grand jury is expected to issue indictments as soon as Friday. The Monitor's White House correspondent, Linda Feldmann, answers key questions about the case.

Q. How did this affair begin?

At its heart lie questions about the Bush administration's case for war against Iraq. On Jan. 28, 2003, in his State of the Union address, President Bush included these 16 words: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The implication was that Iraq was developing a nuclear-weapons program. But US intelligence officials had by then - and have since - expressed doubts about that claim. In July 2003, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador to two African countries and Iraq, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times disputing Mr. Bush's statement.

The CIA, he wrote, sent him to Niger in 2002 to determine if Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Africa. He concluded no. One week after Mr. Wilson's op-ed, syndicated columnist Robert Novak reported that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."

At issue is whether Mr. Novak's government sources blew her cover as a CIA agent, in violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982..............
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20051028/ts_csm/aplame;_ylt=AuS0tA5sKD5c2CDnGXU16Wys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

Copyright © 2005 The Christian Science Monitor

Hallmark of Bush presidency: control over information flow | csmonitor.com

Hallmark of Bush presidency: control over information flow | csmonitor.com: "September 01, 2005 edition

Hallmark of Bush presidency: control over information flow
By Pat M. Holt
WASHINGTON – Disagreements with President Johnson over the Vietnam War drove Congress to circumscribe the powers of the presidency so much that when Johnson left the White House in 1969, it was said it would take until the end of the century to restore those lost powers. Thanks to a succession of weak presidents, the end of the century arrived without much having been done in this respect.

Richard Nixon, impeached by the House over Watergate, resigned to avoid trial by the Senate. Gerald Ford was unable to deal with the mess Nixon left. Despite the considerable accomplishment of the Camp David accord making peace between Egypt and Israel, Jimmy Carter was weakened by the hostage crisis in Iran and the botched rescue attempt. Ronald Reagan and his vice president, George H.W. Bush, had the Iran-contra scandal. For Bill Clinton, it was Monica Lewinsky and an impeachment trial (he was acquitted)."

"Clinton Named UN Envoy to Tsunami Zone, Peace Effort",,Feb. 1 2005, (Bloomberg)...

~ I think this is the perfect job for Bill Clinton, and I mean that as a compliment.
I wish him luck. ~~ tp

Feb. 1 2005, (Bloomberg)
Clinton Named UN Envoy to Tsunami Zone, Peace Effort
-- Former U.S. President Bill Clinton agreed to be United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan's envoy for tsunami recovery in Asia and spur efforts to resolve conflicts in two of the countries hit by deadly waves.

Democrat Clinton's appointment adds to his role as an emissary for Republican President George W. Bush's effort to increase private donations to relief and reconstruction operations. Clinton and former President George H.W. Bush have been traveling throughout the U.S. to raise money and last week said they would go to the region.

The Dec. 26 disaster left more than 280,000 dead or missing in 12 countries around the Indian Ocean, devastated coastal economies and prompted the largest multinational relief operation in history.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a4Q6E.GCE2Hs&refer=top_world_news

BUT I CHALLENGE anyone to produce a documented instance , that Bill Clinton ever lied to the American public in the matters of War & Peace ~` by ~ TP

` `Comment below next article ~~ ` TP


By PAUL NOWELL, Associated Press Writer

February 1, 2005
"Helms Pleads to Keep Clinton Out of U.N."

CHARLOTTE, N.C - They may both be out of office, but Bill Clinton - remains the ultimate boogeyman for former Sen. Jesse Helms. In a fund-raising a letter for his senatorial library, Helms invokes the specter of the former president leading the United Nations after Kofi Annan retires next year.

"I'm sure you might agree that putting a left-wing, undisciplined and ethically challenged former President of the United States into a position of such power would be a tragic mistake," wrote the 83-year-old Republican, who left office in 2003 after five terms. >>>>>>

~ ~ ~ Bill Clinton balanced the budget mess he inherited from the Reagan- Bush administrations.

Bill tried to get the Insurance companies out of health care.

Mr. Clinton was the first US President not to overthrow every little western hemisphere country who did not tow the American business interests line.

And Bill Clinton is still much better respected in the Global community that any American President of the past generation. { And certainly better than the Dubuya Bush or his Dad]

Okay , so he lied about a personal matter of intimate relations.

A point that was so distantly tangential to the Whitewater investigation that it was simply a Ken Starr sham.

Bill Clinton did not lie about committing a criminal act , but simply a human act , one that people lie about -- in grossly huge numbers -- everyday.

[As a matter of fact it is often good etiquette to lie on this topic. I, for one, never liked folks who kiss and tell. ]

BUT I CHALLENGE anyone to produce a documented instance , that Bill Clinton ever lied to the American public in the matters of War & Peace , or even Jobs & Interest Rates.

Mr. Clinton on Foreign & Domestic Policy issues was the most forthcoming and honest President this nation ever had. That is not to say I agree with everything he said.

But at least when I came home at the end of the day to watch the news, I knew the President of the United States was shooting strait with me.

As opposed to the “Reagan – Bush I – BUSH II – Dick Chaney” team and their formalized policies of Dis-Information that they feed to the American Public and to the world each & every day.

Bill Clinton has got my vote UN Secretary General,, and I predict here today he will get that Job after Kofi Annon leaves. ~~
~~ TP
-----------------------------------------

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

Knowing Their Politics by the Software They Us

Mon, 5 Jul 2004

Knowing Their Politics by the Software They Use

By STEVE LOHR

In a campaign season of polarization, when Republicans and Democrats seem far apart on issues like Iraq, the economy and leadership style, it is perhaps not surprising that the parties find themselves on different sides in the politics of software as well.

The Web sites of Senator John Kerry and the Democratic National Committee run mainly on the technology of the computing counterculture: open-source software that is distributed free, and improved and debugged by far-flung networks of programmers.

In the other corner, the Web sites of President Bush and the Republican National Committee run on software supplied by the corporate embodiment of big business - Microsoft.

The two sides are defined largely by their approach to intellectual property. Fans of open-source computing regard its software as a model for the future of business, saying that its underlying principle of collaboration will eventually be used in pharmaceuticals, entertainment and other industries whose products are tightly protected by patents or copyrights.

Many of them propose rewriting intellectual property laws worldwide to limit their scope and duration. The open-source path, they insist, should accelerate the pace of innovation and promote long-term economic growth. Theirs is an argument of efficiency, but also of a reshuffling of corporate wealth.

Microsoft and other American companies, by contrast, have long argued that intellectual property is responsible for any edge the United States has in an increasingly competitive global economy. Craig Mundie, chief technical officer and a senior strategist at Microsoft, observed, "Whether copyrights, patents or trade secrets, it was this foundation in law that made it possible for companies to raise capital, take risks, focus on the long term and create sustainable business models."

The dispute can take on a political flavor at times. David Brunton, who is a founder of Plus Three, a technology and marketing consulting company that has done much of the work on the Democratic and Kerry Web sites, regards open-source software as a technological _expression of his political beliefs. Mr. Brunton, 28, a Harvard graduate, describes himself as a "very left-leaning Democrat." He met his wife, Lina, through politics; she is a staff member at the Democratic National Committee.

His company's client list includes state Democratic parties in Ohio and Missouri, and union groups including the United Federation of Teachers and the parent A.F.L.-C.I.O. "The ethic of open source has pervaded progressive organizations," Mr. Brunton said.

The corporate proponents of strong intellectual property rights say, in essence, that what is good for Microsoft, Merck and Disney is good for America. But they argue as well that the laws that protect them also protect the ideas of upstart innovators. They have made their case forcefully in Washington and before international groups, notably the World Intellectual Property Organization, a United Nations specialized agency.

"This is a huge ideological debate and it goes way beyond software," said James Love, director of the Consumer Project on Technology, a nonprofit group affiliated with Ralph Nader that advocates less restrictive intellectual property rules.

But the politics surrounding open-source software do not always fit neatly into party categories. The people who work on software like the Linux operating system, the Apache Web server and others are an eclectic bunch of technologists. "You'll find gun nuts along with total lefties," Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, said in an e-mail message.

Still, those who find the cooperative, open-source ethos appealing tend most often to be libertarians, populists and progressives. Not surprisingly, open-source software was well represented in Howard Dean's Democratic presidential primary campaign, which so effectively used the Internet and Web logs in grass-roots organizing.

Those open-source advocates will presumably find Senator Kerry more appealing than President Bush, according to Daniel Weitzner, technology and society director at the World Wide Web Consortium, an Internet standards-setting organization.

"It may be that the populist-versus-establishment dynamic plays out as Democrat versus Republican in this election," Mr. Weitzner said. "But the open-source movement is a populist phenomenon, enabled by the Internet, and not a partisan force in any traditional sense of politics."

The lone trait common to open-source supporters, according to Mr. Torvalds, is individualism. Politically, he said, that can manifest itself as independence from either political party. "But it also shows up as a distrust of big companies," Mr. Torvalds wrote, "so it's not like the individualism is just about politics."

Eric Raymond, a leading open-source advocate, writing in his online "Jargon File," described the politics of the archetypal open-source programmer, whom he calls J. Random Hacker, as "vaguely liberal-moderate, except for the strong libertarian contingent, which rejects conventional left-right politics entirely."

Mr. Raymond, for one, shoots pistols for relaxation (a favorite is "the classic 1911 pattern .45 semiautomatic") and he supported the invasion of Iraq.

So was the software for the Republican and Democratic Web sites selected according to politics?

Microsoft, to be sure, has fared far better under the Bush administration than under the administration of President Bill Clinton. The Clinton Justice Department filed a sweeping antitrust suit against Microsoft, and asked that the big software company be broken up. The Bush administration later settled the case and left Microsoft intact.

Referring to the software selection process, Steve Ellis, director of network and online services for the Republican National Committee, said: "There was no pressure. We were free to use whatever software we thought worked best."

The principal consideration, Mr. Ellis said, was computer security and protecting the privacy of personal data on the Web site. The programming tools, procedures and the larger pool of workers skilled in using Microsoft software, he said, prompted the Republicans to opt for Microsoft's Web server, called Internet Information Services, running on the Windows 2000 operating system.

Both the Microsoft Web site software and the open-source alternative, the Apache server running on Linux, have had security problems, said Richard M. Smith, a computer security expert. But the Microsoft software, he said, "clearly is the least secure of the two Web serving solutions," given its susceptibility to infection by malicious computer worms like Code Red and Nimba.

For technology experts, like Mr. Brunton, software may have a political cast. But there is little evidence that it has become an issue for front-office political operatives. Told that the Democratic National Committee Web site runs on open-source software, Tony Welch, the national committee's press secretary, replied, "Oh, thanks for telling me." Later, after checking with his technical staff, Mr. Welch called back to say that open-source software was "the right technology at the right price."

Both the Democratic and Republican sites have done pretty well. Mr. Kerry has raised more than $56 million over the Internet this year, including $3 million last Wednesday, setting a single-day record for online fund-raising. The Republican Web site won an award in March from George Washington University's Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet for the best online campaign by a political party.

"The Web site is a great grass-roots organizing tool, and we've probably just scratched the surface," said Christine Iverson, press secretary for the Republican National Committee.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Democrats vie in Internet 'primary'

Democrats vie in Internet 'primary'

By Tom Curry, MSNBC
Fri, 20 Jun 2003

Some activists smell something fishy about next week's Web-based "primary" to test the early strength of Democratic presidential contenders. While a number of the candidates are urging their supporters to vote in the Moveon.org event, some strategists see it as skewed toward Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who shares the group's antiwar views. "It appears to be rigged," said Erik Smith, a spokesman for Rep. Dick Gephardt's campaign.

SMITH CHARGED THAT people who registered on the Moveon.org Web site this week immediately received an e-mail from Dean, but from no other contender, trying to win their support. "It doesn't look like every candidate was given an equal opportunity," Smith said.

"I'm sorry people feel that way," said Moveon.org co-founder Wes Boyd. "A few days ago, some of the campaigns weren't taking this vote seriously." But now that the event has gotten some news media and grass-roots attention, Boyd said, "some campaigns are trying to delegitimatize this process."

Launched in 1998 by two Silicon Valley entrepreneurs to oppose the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, Moveon.org says 1.4 million people have participated in its petition and mobilization efforts.

'HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS'
Boyd said he expects "hundreds of thousands" to vote in next week's event, which will be conducted Tuesday and Wednesday. For comparison, about 156,000 voted in the 2000 New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary.

Boyd said his group sent a memo to all nine Democratic contenders explaining how the primary would work. In a pre-primary straw poll, the group determined that the three favorites among its members were Dean, Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.

Only the three favorites get a promotional e-mail sent out on their behalf to people who register to vote in the Moveon.org event.

'DEAN'S GUARANTEED WIN'
Playing down the importance of the Moveon.org vote, one operative working in a 2004 campaign said, "It is widely recognized that this is Howard Dean's guaranteed win."

The group will announce the outcome of the vote Friday. If any of the contenders garners more than 50 percent of the votes, he'll get Moveon.org's endorsement for the Democratic nomination.

"We're setting a high bar; it will be very difficult for anybody to achieve that," said Boyd.

He said the group decided to conduct its self-styled primary early in the campaign because "ordinary people should get involved and not let the pundits and big contributors determine the field."

A Dean victory in the Moveon.org primary would add a positive note to what has been a recent series of news-making coups for the Vermont maverick. Last week, Dean launched the first television ads run so far by any Democratic presidential contender.

And last weekend at the Wisconsin Democratic Party convention, in a straw poll organized by National Journal's Campaign Hotline, Dean placed first, although only 352 votes were cast.

Moveon.org has played a lead role in opposing President Bush's Iraq policy and is currently running newspaper ads with the headline "MISLEADER" superimposed on a photo of Bush.

ACCUSES BUSH OF LYING :The ad says, "The evidence suggests that ... the American people were deliberately misled. It would be a tragedy if young men and women were sent to die for a lie."

Moveon.org's antiwar orientation seems to give a decided advantage in its primary to the two contenders who have been most outspoken in opposing Bush's Iraq policy, Dean and Kucinich.

So why, then, have Democratic hopefuls Gephardt, Sen. Joe Lieberman and Sen. John Edwards -- who all voted to authorize Bush's invasion of Iraq -- urged their supporters to take part in the Moveon.org event?

Lieberman campaign spokesman Jano Cabrera told MSNBC.com, "We encourage our supporters to participate, but we encourage them to participate in as many venues and forums as possible."

But Cabrera acknowledged, "When it comes to organizing in cyberspace, the advantage goes to other campaigns. We recognize that Howard Dean has made an extraordinary effort when it comes to organizing people online."

Gephardt campaign spokesman Smith said Gephardt was competing in the Moveon.org primary because "we don't to write anybody off. These (Moveon.org members) are passionate Democrats."

One prominent Democrat who is not affiliated with any campaign was critical of Moveon.org's timing. Simon Rosenberg, the president of the New Democratic Network, a centrist fund-raising group, said Moveon.org might diminish its clout by endorsing a candidate so early.

"My concern in that this primary -- and if they end up endorsing (a candidate) -- could dramatically limit their long-term ability to be influential in the Democratic Party," said Rosenberg. "They have taken an enormous risk. I hope they know what they are doing."

Moveon.org staffer Zack Exley recently took a two-week leave of absence from the group to work as paid consultant for the Dean campaign on how to improve its Internet voter mobilization tools.

Exley said Moveon.org had offered to share its expertise with other Democratic presidential contenders as well. His work for Dean, Exley said, "should not be interpreted as a sign that the Move.on staff has an interest in endorsing Dean."

He added, "We're supporting all the Democratic candidates" by offering to spread Moveon.org's Internet expertise.

HOW VALID A VOTE?
One computer expert suggested there's reason to question the validity of any Internet vote.

"It is impossible to ensure an accurate vote over the Internet, using conventional computer hardware and software (e.g., PCs running Windows, etc.)," said Lauren Weinstein, the co-founder of a group called People For Internet Responsibility.

"The fundamental nature of these systems makes them open to voting compromise in a vast number of ways, most of which could be completely hidden from the user," said Weinstein. "Vote hackers could even plant viruses on systems way in advance that would just sit and wait for an election."

Asked about Weinstein's analysis, Boyd conceded there may be "opportunities for abuse" in the Moveon.org vote, but he noted, "there are opportunities for abuses in our larger electoral system as well."

The group has commissioned a telephone exit poll of a sample of those who take part in next week's vote to see if the sample jibes with the total raw vote. If the exit poll is substantially at odds with the total vote, Boyd said, the group may try to find out if the vote was manipulated in some way.

Putting aside the technical questions, if Dean does indeed win the Moveon.org vote, the rival campaigns will quickly seek to, as they say, just move on.

MSNBC Terms, Conditions and Privacy ©2003

Internet Proves to be Powerful

Internet Proves to be Powerful

in Political, Legislative Battles
By Jim Buie
Copyright 2001

Impeachment Sparked Deluge of Downloading and Online Mobilization !!

"The success of Ventura and other Internet-savvy candidates in 1998 wasn't the only evidence of the Internet's emerging political power. The release of the Starr report over the World Wide Web in the fall of 1998 increased overall Internet traffic by as much as 80 percent, and sparked a deluge of heated discussions on and off the Internet.

Alerting and mobilizing people entirely over the Internet, Jim Robinson, the publisher of the conservative Free Republic web site, sponsored an "Impeach Clinton" rally at the Washington Monument on Halloween. It attracted more than 4,000 people, and set a new standard for grassroots organizing by Internet. "I don't think anything like this has ever happened before, where thousands of people who didn't know each other get together in a place thousands of miles from home," Brian Buckley, counsel for the web site, told The Washington Post."

"Conversely, more than 500,000 Internet users, fed up with the impeachment process, signed a petition and pledged more than $10 million through the web site Move On.org to defeat the politicians they believe ignored voters' wishes to censure President Clinton and move on to other business. MoveOn.org ultimately collected more than $2 million and donated it to progressive candidates in Campaign 2000. Since the election, MoveOn.org has established itself as an effective advocacy group."
http://www.us.net/indc/column2.htm#Impeachment

===================================================

the Internet

and the

Impeachment of Bill Clinton

by TechnoPolitcal

Blog Staff

~~ Bill Clinton's recreational dilly dallys and the disproportionate Republican impeachment , evolved , both from and into an important touchstone of early political & general internet history.

Matt Druge's pioneering website lit the Impreachment Scandal Fire, that spread in no small way by the internet, esp. so considering that there really was not that many people online in 1998.

The effect of the Internet on the Presidency of Bill Clinton cannot be underestimated. Clinton haters and muckrakers were among the first to use the Web to spread their wares, with Matt Druge becoming the first Internet news superstar by breaking the Monica Lewinisky story. (Though, where is Matt today in 2002?) As well the final report by the office of Special Prosecutor Richard Starr on the Whitewater ---(which grew into the Lewinsky mess)--- shook the world wide web in a way thatno event had no event had done so before.

“The release of the Starr report over the World Wide Web in the fall of 1998 increased overall Internet traffic by as much as 80 percent, and sparked a deluge of heated discussions on and off the Internet.” [111]

President Clinton had the mixed blessing of the Cyber-Activism and Political Information Portals (PIPs) taking root during his term.The Internet certainly was a contributing factor in his impeachment by the House as documented in these quotes from cyber-political journalist Jim Buie:

“Alerting and mobilizing people entirely over the Internet, Jim Robinson, the publisher of the conservativeFree Republic web site, sponsored an "ImpeachClinton" rally at theWashington Monument on Halloween [1998]. It attracted more than 4,000 people, and set a new standard for grassroots organizing by Internet,” [112]

However the Internet may haveplayed an even larger (but still minor in my opinion) role inClinton's subsequent acquittal by the Senate.

“… more than 500,000 Internet users, fed up with the impeachment process, signed a petition and pledged more than $10 million through the web sitewww.Move On.org to defeat the politicians they believe ignored voters' wishes to censure President Clinton and move on tother business. MoveOn.org ultimately collected more than $2 million[113] and donated it to progressive candidates in Campaign 2000.” [114]

-----------

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

A Brief History of the Cyber-Electioneering : 1992- 1996.

A Brief History of

CYBER-

ELECTIONEERING

from 1992 to 1996.

The history of the Cyber-Electioneering began in 1992 when the Democratic Presidential ticket of Governor Bill Clinton and Senator Al Gore posted a website with "full texts of speeches, advertisements and position papers, as well as biographical information."[88] Being a minuscule amount of the American population had Internet access at the time [89] the website was more a novelty than anything else.

Four years latter though in 1996 --- after Window 95 and Internet Explorer was introduced—an election day exit poll by the Voter News Service[90] showed 26% of American voters to be regular Internet users.[91] Realizing this growing trend earlier that year, 1996 Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole felt compelled to announce his campaign's website address at the end of his first nationally televised debate with President Bill Clinton.[92] It did not help, and he lost the race anyway.