Interesting. External search engines are now prohibited from accessing Whitehouse.gov directories dealing with Iraq. http://condi.topcities.com/whrobots/index.html
man...this sucks...normally i read classified, James Bond type documents on whitehouse.gov. ever since Q gave me this new computer, i can just sign right in. man. now i can't learn anything about iraq from the government.
i was joking...i know that...my point is...what's there that you can't get elsewhere? do you really think it's some overt sign of a master conspiracy??? i think we're simply looking for things to attack the administration on when i read threads like this.
It doesn't make sense until you remember that after the famous carrier landing, WH.gov put up a page saying "Combat" operations were over. Later, when things started goin g to hell, they went back and changed the page to say "Major Combat." People were able to call up the archived page on Google and question why the administration is saying they said something they didn't say. In short, because of this denial of external search engines, they can go back and change any web page without a trace, thus making themselves look better and depriving of the opposition of using WH pages against the administration. Clear?
Yea, I feel that way with any technology argument, and I'm sure it's not clear the way I described it... but (trust me on this Max) it does appear to be a cynical attempt at controlling what the public can see in the document archive of wh.org.
It's an overt sign that this administration isn't working in good faith with the American people and seeks to undermine the flow of information as much as it can which you'd rather mock with using the conspiracy card instead of asking why it's being done.
Sounds like in the one case it was done because the level of combat changed and the WH didn't want to give the Eternal Critics political fodder to nag, nag, nag. Political opportunism now brought to you by Librarians!
All seems to be well now... ___________ WHITE HOUSE'S SEARCH ENGINE PRACTICES CAUSE CONCERN Posted 28 Oct 2003 04:59:54 UTC Senator Hiram Johnson famously quipped that "the first casualty when war comes is the truth." As the war in Iraq continues, is the White House intentionally preventing search engines from preserving a record of its statements on the conflict? Or, did their staff simply make a technical mistake? When search engines "spider" the web in search of documents for their indices, web site owners sometimes put a file called robots.txt which instructs the "spiders" not to index certain files. This can be for policy reasons, if an author does not want his or her pages to appear in search listings, or it can be for technical reasons, for example if a web site is dynamically generated and can not or should not be downloaded in its entirety. According to reports, though, the White House is requesting that search engines not index certain pages related to Iraq. In addition to stopping searches, this prevents archives like Google's cache and the Internet Archive from storing copies of pages that may later change. 2600 called the White House to investigate the matter. According to White House spokesman Jimmy Orr, the blocking of search engines is not an attempt to ensure future revisions will remain undetected. Rather, he explained, they "have an Iraq section [of the website] with a different template than the main site." Thus, for example, a press release on a meeting between President Bush and "Special Envoy" Bremer is available in the Iraq template (blocked from being indexed by search engines) or the normal White House template (available for indexing by search engines). The attempt, Mr. Orr said, was that when people search, they should not get multiple copies of the same information. Most of the "suspicious" entries in the robots.txt file do, indeed, appear to have only this effect. According to the robots.txt of October 24, though, the In Focus: Iraq section of the site was blocked from search engines. Some of the information there does not appear to be available anywhere else on the White House site. However, it seems that, in response to inquiries from 2600 and other sources, the White House web team has recently changed their robots.txt so that these files are no longer blocked. (The current Last-Modified date on the robots.txt is 23:22 GMT, October 27th, after work on this article had already begun.) It is of course open to speculation as to whether the original blocking of the content in question was malicious or an honest mistake. Certainly anyone who maintains a large website has made some sort of technical mistake at least once, and the promptness with which the error was fixed after it was pointed out suggests that the White House had no interest in keeping it in place. The White House, as an entity responsible to the citizenry and an entity that has generated a lot of criticism over its handling of the situation in Iraq, ought to take special care to avoid similar mistakes in the future. Nonetheless, we are pleased to learn that, at least this time, the issue seems to have been resolved promptly. Story with hyperlinks: http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/1803
dodging what issue??? i have no freaking idea why they disabled the searches...you may be absolutely right. i have no idea. i don't know!!! what do you want me to say?? the point is, you don't know either, but you're willing to assume, at every turn, that the administration is out to get you. that there's a massive conspiracy in place to keep you from information you're somehow entitled to. hey...that's your perogative...that's your spin on things, and you're certainly entitled to it. but i'm gonna argue to the contrary sometimes...particularly when i'm not convinced. like here. http://www.whitehouse.gov/query.html?col=colpics&qt=iraq
"It is of course open to speculation as to whether the original blocking of the content in question was malicious or an honest mistake." the entirety of my point summed up in one sentence in the midst of rimrocker's last posted article.
You constantly dodge the issue of accountability on behalf of this administration. It must be a sign of a "massive conspiracy". Whatever man. They were denying people the ability to search information on a topic of great concern and controversy and you go straight to the massive conspiracy card. You had no point other than to continue your trend of attempted witty quips to any attempt at holding this administration accountable for it's actions.
Timing...why the tone? bad time of the month?? by the way...my witty quips aren't attempts...they're quite damn witty. I'll post it again: "It is of course open to speculation as to whether the original blocking of the content in question was malicious or an honest mistake." By the way...I have been critical of this administration...i have not supported it at every turn. I have been vocal about concerns with the Patriot Act...I've said that I'm greatly concerned with the comments by the Powell aide about information they possessed before the war. No doubt, you missed those posts. Because it's more fun to take sides and point across some imaginary line at some imaginary enemy, i guess. But ultimately...why do you care so much what I think? You sprouted off a conversation I was having with rimrocker where we reached some conclusion; some understanding. He says, "it looks like it may be X." I'm telling you and him, you're right...it might be X...but it also might be Y...and without more information, I'm not gonna guess, thereby indicting the administration. No doubt, you'll have no problems with such guessing.
Whaaaaa? I'm in complete agreement with you Max, not only on this issue, but in your last post. I've seen you express your troubles with the Bush administration more than any other conservative on this board...which I'm not sure is saying a lot.
i'm telling you...if Democrats for Life gets any momentum, I'd be looking around! I'm saying that with a smile...but there's truth in that statement, to be sure.
Ultimately this is what you said. man...this sucks...normally i read classified, James Bond type documents on whitehouse.gov. ever since Q gave me this new computer, i can just sign right in. man. now i can't learn anything about iraq from the government. And let me tell you this was incredibly funny by the way. i was joking...i know that...my point is...what's there that you can't get elsewhere? do you really think it's some overt sign of a master conspiracy??? i think we're simply looking for things to attack the administration on when i read threads like this.[i/] Again, very funny with master conspiracy and Bush hating theories in full effect. Now you attempt to express your great concern after twice mocking the situation but hey at least you didn't put the ole Halliburton Jewish mafia chum in the water. This administration was attempting to censor material on a controversial topic, why that happened I don't know but if you just want to joke about it and call it conspiracy dropping and Bush hating well that's your own perogative. And really this is a message board Max not a phone booth, if you want to have a conversation with one person then send them an email.
