Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by bilmore
Well, then, be clear - are you agreeing with Lautenberg's charges or not? Or, was this simply a "Delay sucks!" chiming in?

I think that DeLay carefully worded the statement to be vague enough for any and all interpretation, and when he's asked about it, he'll deny that he meant anything but impeachment/changing standards of the judiciary.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Oh, you think he's saying that DeLay sucks only the cocks of rabid dogs? That seems specific enough to be unthreatening to the cocksuckers of the world, but it it seems like that would be "rabid-dog-cock sucker." Or maybe he really meant "rabid dog-cock sucker."

I still think I read it right, and that RT is "2"ing because the somewhat widespread disapprobation of cocksucking gives her a competitive advantage.

I believe I'm clearly on the record in favor of cocksucking generally. Don't get all bitter on me just because you keep choking on strings. If it's that much of a problem, don't tie a bow around them before you start the blow job.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I believe I'm clearly on the record in favor of cocksucking generally.

It's just these kinds of mixed messages that really screw with women's heads.

I'm not bitter. Like RT, I have a competitive advantage.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk

Delay's comments closely parallel the "lone wolf" calls of the far-right militia and racist thugs who are his biggest fans.

What did the white supemecist originally thought to have plotted Lefkow's murder say? Something like "she will get her judgment"?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What did the white supemecist originally thought to have plotted Lefkow's murder say? Something like "she will get her judgment"?

Yep, that's what he said.

[sgtclub]

• The terms of Berger's agreement required him to acknowledge to the Justice Department the circumstances of the episode. Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar31.html

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub [list]The terms of Berger's agreement]

Mmmm, Berger

(hi ltl/fb!)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The terms of Berger's agreement required him to acknowledge to the Justice Department the circumstances of the episode. Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business .

Oh, that lovable rapscallion!

(Martha Stewart does time for not telling the truth to federal investigators. Sandy Burgler pays a ticket for the same thing, plus violation of several fed statutes. Must pay to have the right friends.)

[sgtclub]

• BAGHDAD, Iraq - Influential Sunni Muslim clerics who once condemned Iraqi security force members as traitors made a surprise turnaround Friday and encouraged citizens to join the nascent police and army.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._re_mi_ea/iraq

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
2. Taxwonk has my proxy on this.

I'd think that one over if i were you.

If you actually gave him something that touched you, even a proxy, he's going to get it all sticky. And not in a good way.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
So, by arguing that Delay would have little basis for his efforts, you mean to say that that is obviously NOT what he spoke of?

Your faith in Delay's intellect is touching.

And your lack of faith in his intellect is telling.

In my view, Delay's statement was very irresponsible. It is not ludicrous to believe that some lunatic, somewhere might be inspired to act based on it or similar statements. Consider that, about two weeks ago, an out-of-stater was arrested for trying to rob a gun store in Florida "to rescue Terri Schiavo."

Anyhow, I present this relevant message for my colleagues on all sides of the aisle. Some of you may have seen it already:

"As members of the legal profession, I know you share my concern over the public's misunderstanding of the judiciary's role and the politically motivated criticism of the judiciary stemming from the Terri Schiavo case, and are equally alarmed about the murders of Judge Lefkow's family members in Chicago and the attacks at the Fulton County Courthouse in Georgia. The circumstances of these tragic events require careful analysis, thoughtful leadership, and measured response. The American Bar Association has long held the preservation of judicial independence as one of the most important Association goals. These recent events have elevated the urgency of that commitment among the ABA's leadership. In the past several days, I have issued public statements condemning the violence against our judiciary and the gratuitous and vicious public attacks on the dedicated men and women who are our country's judges. During my speaking engagements, I have taken the opportunity to call for a change in tenor when the national discussion turns to our justice system.

"Regardless of how one feels about the specific circumstances of the Schiavo - or any - situation, the role of the judiciary is clear. Federal and state judges are charged with weighing the facts of a case and following the remedies set forth in the law, responsibilities they carry out valiantly and with great dignity and sensitivity.

"It is vital that the legal community address the current atmosphere in which our legal system operates, in what can only be called a decline in civility and respect toward our justice system. 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. Efforts to address the problems of courthouse security have been initiated by the Judicial Conference of the United States and the National Center for State Courts, and I have approached these organizations as well as a number of entities within the ABA to determine where and how we can best contribute to resolving problems faced by the nation's courts and judges.

"The Association is committed to promoting the importance of judicial independence. The four entities that comprise the ABA Justice Center: the Judicial Division, the Standing Committee on Judicial Independence, the Standing Committee on Federal Judicial Improvements, and the Coalition for Justice work tirelessly to develop resources, initiatives, policies, and programs that support our justice system, our judges, and our courts. Information on each of these entities' initiatives can be accessed through the Justice Center's Web site at http://www.abanet.org/justicecenter/home.html

"Thank you for your continued support of the ABA, the legal profession, and the judiciary. As the voice of the legal profession, we must not allow those among us who would do harm, in any form, to destroy the very freedoms our legal system is entrusted to protect.

"Sincerely,
Robert J. Grey, Jr.
President, American Bar Association"

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
(Martha Stewart does time for not telling the truth to federal investigators. Sandy Burgler pays a ticket for the same thing, plus violation of several fed statutes. Must pay to have the right friends.)

This is a surprise? Hell, Weinberger was pardoned pre-indictment.

S_A_M

P.S. That said, Jesus Christ, Berger!

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
This is a surprise? Hell, Weinberger was pardoned pre-indictment.

S_A_M

P.S. That said, Jesus Christ, Berger!

Yeah.

Some additional perspectives from Laura Rozen:

• Readers with clearances respond to Berger case. Earlier today, I asked for feedback about whether Sandy Berger's behavior is as baffling to those with security clearances as it was to me. Several people responded, and a few have agreed to let me post their perspectives anonymously.
  
  Reader J:
  
  Responding to your question, and having held Top Secret clearances now for the last six years, I am at a loss to explain what Berger was thinking. 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.
  
  I have heard the following explanations:
  
  1) Berger is, and always has been, an incredibly sloppy man, both in his personal appearance and his work organization. The initial claim that this was an inadvertent mistake fits into that caricature, although Berger has now admitted the removal was intentional.
  
  2) This memo in question was drafted by Richard Clarke, but ultimately was signed out to the President under Berger's signature. Why couldn't he take home a document that he "authored"? It was not as if he was learning anything new. I suspect this attitude permeates many national security officials, including myself at times. Rampant and needless overclassification afflicts our government. 50% of classified material does not contain sensitive materials that could compromise the security of our nation; more often than not, they are classified to avoid embarrassing U.S. officials or embarrasing foreign officials. But to argue that "loose lips sink ships" is a gross distortion of truly sensitive material, i.e. Ahmed Chalabi telling the Iranians the U.S. have broken the code to their electronic communications, versus more routine material that still is classified, e.g. notes on a meeting between low-level U.S. officials meeting with their low-level German counterparts.
  
  3) Finally, hubris. Berger was the NSC Advisor and a highly influential foreign policy official for decades. He is used to having assistants bring him documents and them remove them for storage in safes. Now, here he was, sitting at the National Archives, reviewing a ton of documents, without even one aide to help him. Why should a man like he, who served at the pinnacle of U.S. government, have to check his documents in and out with menial National Archives staff? "Pride goeth before the fall."
  
  Whatever the case, contrary to the Times speculaton, Berger's career as a U.S. government official is over. He is guilty of committing a misdemeanor, a charge that would disqualify you or I from ever holding a U.S. security clearance. Imagine a confirmation hearing for Berger.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Yeah.

Some additional perspectives from Laura Rozen:

That was a joke right?

The guy shredded the documents!

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That was a joke right?

The guy shredded the documents!

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.