Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Guy Smiley]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That was a joke right?

The guy shredded the documents!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Yes, club. The guy shredded the documents. This letter wasn't about that -- it was speculation as to why he took the things in the first place.

But what about this made you think that it was apologistic? To me, the letter suggests:

(a) he's a slob, so inadvertence would not be out of character, but

(b) he did admit to taking them intentionally, and

(c) he used to be the head honcho, and often arrogant policymakers have a hard time complying with rules that apply to everyone else, including former head honchos, and

(d) he simply and stupidly thought no one would catch him.

oh, and (e) he'll nebber mirk in dis ciddy again.

Doesn't sound like a pleasant portrait of the man to me, but I thought it was interesting speculation as to why he'd do something stupid like that in the first place. (Trying to cover up his fuckup later is stupid but less mysterious because it's predictable).

If what you want is more articles advocating the thumbscrews, I'm sure they're around somewhere.

The post you cited is factually inaccurate and reaches conclusions that are ridiculous in light of the fact that he shredded the documents.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Guy Smiley
/images/sandy_scissorhands_full.jpg

A member for nearly 2 years, and this is the first post? Looks like someone found an old post-it with log-in information.

Apropos of nothing, Guy Smiley was my favorite Muppet when the Not Bobette was in the Sesame Street viewing audience. Nice moniker.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Too often judges are characterized as political tools and the justice system merely an offshoot of politics, and not the independent leg of our democracy that they are.

He wants to address the perception. But, in many cases, on both sides, the perception only follows the reality. We have judges - on both sides of the fence - who make baldly partisan rulings that truly engender the lack of respect. His solution seems to be, we should speak more politely about them when they do. Isn't there another view?

For instance - there are several states where plaintiffs love to file, because of the rank bias of the judiciary. There are also several states where insurers love to file, again because of the rank bias of the judiciary. Grey always strikes me as saying that, if we just pretend, everyone will be happy. I think he needs to look to more basic issues.

[Guy Smiley]

Originally posted by Not Bob
A member for nearly 2 years, and this is the first post? Looks like someone found an old post-it with log-in information.

Apropos of nothing, Guy Smiley was my favorite Muppet when the Not Bobette was in the Sesame Street viewing audience. Nice moniker.

I post a lot on Infirmation.com and often lurk here. That being said, I'm sure I posted here a few times before.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
"The GOP charges that Berger was engaged in some type of cover-up are difficult to believe -- the 9/11 Commission had full access to the Clarke report that Berger purloined -- it did not need the National Archives copy. That report was fully referenced in the final Commission report. If Berger did all this to cover something up, he is more stupid than criminal."

Good rewrite. "Reframing the issue", of sorts.

He took five sets of identical (almost!) docs. Each set had circulated to different groups of people for review and comment, and so each set had a bunch of different handwritten notations all over them. He looked at the five sets, carefully destroyed three sets with his scissors, and then returned two sets.

Gee. Think it was the report body he was concerned with?

[Guy Smiley]

Originally posted by bilmore
Good rewrite. "Reframing the issue", of sorts.

He took five sets of identical (almost!) docs. Each set had circulated to different groups of people for review and comment, and so each set had a bunch of different handwritten notations all over them. He looked at the five sets, carefully destroyed three sets with his scissors, and then returned two sets.

Gee. Think it was the report body he was concerned with?

Never forget to add the part that he "stuffed the documents into his pants and socks..."

Although it is commonplace for Democrats to stuff their underpants and pretend they actually have a pair, the socks are a bit over the top.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Less incredible than the hatred for Bush.

Really? You think hating someone because, well, she was married to their mortal enemy, and she was for socialized medicine, and, frankly, because she was a woman and a first lady who dared be substantively involved is less incredible than hating some because he is a religious vealto who isn't especially bright but yet never questions himself because he, alone, has the ability to see moral truth, who sees himself as divinely inspired and who seems to view program as a substititute for policy (e.g. tax cuts for all situations, invasion of Iraq at all costs, etc.)? Honestly?

One person is a bit annoying because you didn't necessarily vote for her and don't often agree with her. The other has the power and inclination to impose his divinely-inspired will on anyone who disagrees (and who is therefore and enemy of the state). Surely there is a difference.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The hatred for Hillary was precisely because she was not a candidate. Billmore is right, it started because she was unelected and unconfirmed, and yet still undertook to implement high level policy.

Like nearly every originator of high level policy....

[Adder]

Originally posted by bilmore
Delay should have been more politically correct, and ended with the logical finish about impeachment or changing the judicial appointment system, not because there is any basis for some BS charge that he's inciting the crazies to murder, but because he had to know that there are idiots like Lautenberg out there just waiting to reinterpret any public statement, no matter how tortuous it must be, to make it sound bad.

And Ian Paisley never incited loyalist violence either...

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Adder
Like nearly every originator of high level policy....

Since you're in DC, it would be worth your while to learn the difference between originator and implementer.

While you're at it, you might also want to consider who, in fact, truly "originates" policy--it's not all bottom-up; most often it's top-bottom-top.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Guy Smiley
I post a lot on Infirmation.com and often lurk here. That being said, I'm sure I posted here a few times before.

Oops, sorry. Thought that you were a sock that someone had just rediscovered. But I do like the moniker --- ".....and now, it's Guy SMI-ley!"

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Adder
Like nearly every originator of high level policy....

You must be thinking of the EU.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Since you're in DC, it would be worth your while to learn the difference between originator and implementer.

While you're at it, you might also want to consider who, in fact, truly "originates" policy--it's not all bottom-up; most often it's top-bottom-top.

Uh... you remember we were talking about Hillary's health care proposal, right?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You must be thinking of the EU.

You were going to explain why torture is justified on grounds other than self-defense.