Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Upon further reflection, maybe it was the Chicago Tribune. They've been known to do this kind of stuff, on occasion.

I've been wondering, is the bottle like a stand-in? It's so phallic. Is there something you are compensating for?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm mostly just disgusted that Berger's career is getting trashed for no good reason. The breathless stories on CNN bother me maybe as much as whoever leaked it.

2

Stealing is a separate commandment from lying, lying, that's the bad one. And the commandments don't even mention violating secrecy, do they Atticus? I don't think so, but i haven't read enough pages to make a positive statemnt.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
You know it'll be a fun campaign when even P. Diddy is trying to increase voter turnout.



Of course, "Vote or Die" has some limitations as a get-out-the-vote slogan.
Gattigap

Atticus, does this change stuff? Now can we concede the black vote?

[SlaveNoMore]

From today's Daily Dish

THE NYT SPIN ON BERGER: Here's a strange discrepancy in the NYT's own account of Sandy Berger's illegal purloining of classified material from government archives. Here's one version:

• Republicans accused him on Tuesday of stashing the material in his clothing, but Mr. Breuer called that accusation "ridiculous" and politically inspired. He said the documents' removal was accidental.

Then later on in the piece, we read:

• Mr. Breuer, the lawyer, said Mr. Berger inadvertently put three or four versions of the report on the plots in a leather portfolio he had with him. "He had lots of papers, and the memos got caught up in the portfolio," he said. "It was an accident."
  
  Mr. Berger also put in his jacket and pants pockets handwritten notes that he had made during his review of the documents, Mr. Breuer said.

So it's "ridiculous" to assert that he stuffed notes and copies of documents in his clothing, and yet he stashed them in his pants pockets and jacket. Is the critical issue here whether he stuffed them down his underpants or socks? If so, I can't wait for the fruits of the loom, I mean, inquiry.

WHY? The salient question - and we have yet to have an even faintly plausible answer - is why? What was the purpose of stashing document copies that were allegedly available elsewhere? How could such a thing be "inadvertent"? Why is such an accomplished Washington player unable to come up with a reasonable explanation for such bizarre behavior?

The Washington Post reports this morning that a government official with knowledge of the probe said Berger removed from archives files all five or six drafts of a critique of the government's response to the millennium terrorism threat, which he said was classified "codeword," the government's highest level of document security.

All the drafts? And now they're missing? Doesn't that sound like trying to cover your back? And yet the 9/11 Commission has not complained that it lacked any important documents; and the originals are still in the archives. I still don't get it. My best bet is that Berger was engaging in advance damage control - saving the drafts to help concoct a better defense of his tenure. If so, it's classic Clinton era sleaze - not exactly terrible but cheesy subordination of national security for partisan political advantage. But at times like this, I sure am glad we have the blogosphere. Can you imagine the mainstream press really pursuing this story alone? Meanwhile, Clinton thinks the possible leaking of classified information is just hilarious. About as hilarious as his anti-terror policy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
From today's Daily Dish

THE NYT SPIN ON BERGER: Here's a strange discrepancy in the NYT's own account of Sandy Berger's illegal purloining of classified material from government archives. Here's one version:

• Republicans accused him on Tuesday of stashing the material in his clothing, but Mr. Breuer called that accusation "ridiculous" and politically inspired. He said the documents' removal was accidental.

Then later on in the piece, we read:

• Mr. Breuer, the lawyer, said Mr. Berger inadvertently put three or four versions of the report on the plots in a leather portfolio he had with him. "He had lots of papers, and the memos got caught up in the portfolio," he said. "It was an accident."
  
  Mr. Berger also put in his jacket and pants pockets handwritten notes that he had made during his review of the documents, Mr. Breuer said.

So it's "ridiculous" to assert that he stuffed notes and copies of documents in his clothing, and yet he stashed them in his pants pockets and jacket. Is the critical issue here whether he stuffed them down his underpants or socks? If so, I can't wait for the fruits of the loom, I mean, inquiry.

It's just sloppy writing on the NYT's part. Check out the transcript of Wolf Blitzer's interview of Breuer on CNN (link is at Josh's site). He put notes in his pockets -- not illegal, per Breuer -- and carried out a document in his portfolio.

WHY? The salient question - and we have yet to have an even faintly plausible answer - is why? What was the purpose of stashing document copies that were allegedly available elsewhere? How could such a thing be "inadvertent"? Why is such an accomplished Washington player unable to come up with a reasonable explanation for such bizarre behavior?

Are you kidding? I'm pretty orderly with documents, but I walked out of my office yesterday with two documents I didn't need but not the one I did need. Granted, I'm not an accomplished Washington player. But then they usually have perky interns to handle their documents.

The Washington Post reports this morning that a government official with knowledge of the probe said Berger removed from archives files all five or six drafts of a critique of the government's response to the millennium terrorism threat, which he said was classified "codeword," the government's highest level of document security.

That apparently is not something Breuer has been told in the last year, which leads me to believe that "a government official with knowledge of the probe" (read: not a Democrat, eh?) is sandbagging him.

All the drafts? And now they're missing? Doesn't that sound like trying to cover your back? And yet the 9/11 Commission has not complained that it lacked any important documents; and the originals are still in the archives. I still don't get it. My best bet is that Berger was engaging in advance damage control - saving the drafts to help concoct a better defense of his tenure. If so, it's classic Clinton era sleaze - not exactly terrible but cheesy subordination of national security for partisan political advantage. But at times like this, I sure am glad we have the blogosphere. Can you imagine the mainstream press really pursuing this story alone? Meanwhile, Clinton thinks the possible leaking of classified information is just hilarious. About as hilarious as his anti-terror policy.

Criticizing a politician for failing to anticipate that Berger would be slammed tomorrow morning in this particular way would be a little unfair if it was anyone other than Clinton.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
He put notes in his pockets -- not illegal, per Breuer -- and carried out a document in his portfolio.

In a bit of timing irony, the legal discussions surrounding this topic are taking on the exact same focus as the Plame affair -

namely, was the (CIA outing/removal of highly classifed docs) illegal per se, or was the intent of the party relevant to the equation.

Of course, all the notable players have flipped sides.

eta: And with this post, my total has finally reached anno domini 2004.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
In a bit of timing irony, the legal discussions surrounding this topic are taking on the exact same focus as the Plame affair -

namely, was the (CIA outing/removal of highly classifed docs) illegal per se, or was the intent of the party relevant to the equation.

Of course, all the notable players have flipped sides.

eta: And with this post, my total has finally reached anno domini 2004.

Granted, I've been tied up all day and may have missed something, but isn't this an easy question to answer once we now what substance was contained in the removed documents? If non-damaging, seems like the proferred explanation is plausible, and vice versa, no?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
In a bit of timing irony, the legal discussions surrounding this topic are taking on the exact same focus as the Plame affair -

namely, was the (CIA outing/removal of highly classifed docs) illegal per se, or was the intent of the party relevant to the equation.

Of course, all the notable players have flipped sides.

eta: And with this post, my total has finally reached anno domini 2004.

Not at all. If Berger did something verboten, he did something verboten. The defense of him is an appeal to prosecutorial discretion -- it's a stupid offense to prosecute, and what he's getting is certainly worse than the crime. Would that Plame's outers had the same willingness to come forward and acknowledge what they did.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Are you kidding? I'm pretty orderly with documents, but I walked out of my office yesterday with two documents I didn't need but not the one I did need.

Did you check in your socks?

And did you know that some of the documents were draft memos written by your boy Clarke?

Among the documents Berger says he inadvertently took, the sources confirmed, were drafts of a Clinton administration "after action" report on efforts to thwart al Qaeda around the time of the millennium.

Archives officials told investigators that at least one draft of that report is still missing.

Officials close to Berger said it was ludicrous to suggest that he was trying to hide damaging information from the 9/11 commission.

They said the drafts were written by Clinton counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke and had been changed somewhat, as is customary, as the drafts were circulated among relevant agencies and officials.

http://cnn.law.printthis.clickabilit...partnerID=2013

At a minimum, you have to admit, that's some really bad luck in the document he "inadvertanly" grabbed (or good luck if you are suspious of all things Clinton (hi Spartan!))

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So it's "ridiculous" to assert that he stuffed notes and copies of documents in his clothing, and yet he stashed them in his pants pockets and jacket.

There is a difference, the first accounts sound much more guilty (socks and down the shorts).

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The Washington Post reports this morning that a government official with knowledge of the probe said Berger removed from archives files all five or six drafts of a critique of the government's response to the millennium terrorism threat, which he said was classified "codeword," the government's highest level of document security.

Hmmm. That does sound suspicious. Bush's boys had better get their drafts purged before they get to the Archives.

Keep talking about Berger and Wilson, Slave. God Bless.

Meanwhile:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jul20.html

"Democrats Outraising the GOP This Year"

[sgtclub]

http://interestalert.com/brand/sitei...r=World%20News

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Meanwhile:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jul20.html

"Democrats Outraising the GOP This Year"

Oh, God. Looks like the Dems have lost their position as party of the little guy.

Look for BC04 to (further) rejigger its campaign strategy, as George "One do-over, please" Bush hits the stump with a new "People against the Powerful" message. It'll be electric!

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://interestalert.com/brand/sitei...r=World%20News

Hmm. I can't get that link to work, but when Iraq's Interior Minister refers to such a report as "stupid," I'm inclined to wait a few hours to see how this turns out.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Hmm. I can't get that link to work, but when Iraq's Interior Minister refers to such a report as "stupid," I'm inclined to wait a few hours to see how this turns out.

I just post em. It was from UPI I believe.

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breakin...1009-2541r.htm

edited for link