full-disclosure - Slightly off-topic: www.georgewbush.com

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4187B59D.3090707@sdf.lonestar.org>
From: bkfsec at sdf.lonestar.org (Barry Fitzgerald)
Subject: Slightly off-topic: www.georgewbush.com

Dean Brooks wrote:

>The Oil for Food program, however, was truly a scandal.  There would
>never have been ANY situation where Germany or France would have voted
>to approve the war.  No matter how badly Iraq would have been
>violating sanctions (which they were doing for years), there would
>have been nothing Bush could have done to convince them, since they
>were in bed with Iraq financially and were essentially bribed.
>
>  
>
So - to sum up your position:

It's fine if Halliburton does it under Cheney... but it's wrong for 
anyone else to do it... all because Cheney, who at the time was working 
in the private sector, was not a member of the government.

Might I remind you that embargos and sanctions apply to all, not just 
government members and that what we're talking about here is the act of 
getting around the sanctions for gain.   What kind of gain is irrelivent 
to the point because both cases lead to the same result: getting around 
the sanctions. 

It's either OK for all or OK for none - which is it?

          -Barry