Whither Trousergate?

Berger, while reviewing documents, would take frequent bathroom breaks. On one occasion, personnel noticed an unknown white object beneath his pant leg. A witness said Berger “bent down, fiddling with something white, which could have been papers, around his ankle.” No Archives official did or said anything.

As a report by the Archives’ inspector general noted, “He headed toward a construction area… looked up and down the street, up into the windows of the Archives and the DoJ (Department of Justice), and did not see anyone.” He then slid the papers under the trailer. But he took more breaks than four documents or normal biology required.

The Berger team has maintained that: OK, it looks bad, but all documents had been submitted to the 9/11 Commission, and in any event copies of the documents still existed. OK, then, why cut them up and destroy them? Maybe because Berger wasn’t as interested in the reports themselves but in comments certain recipients may have made on the copies he destroyed.

The 9/11 Commission was naturally curious about how the Clinton administration handled prior terror threats and what it knew, and when, about potential threats. So, it asked Berger to testify. Clinton, we know now, signed a letter authorizing Berger’s access to classified documents in the Archives as preparation for his testimony.

A report by the National Archives and Records Administration says Clinton signed an April 12, 2002, letter designating Berger, and another individual whose name was redacted, as “agents on his behalf to review relevant NSC documents regarding Osama bin Laden/al-Qaida, Sudan and presidential correspondence from or to (Sudanese President) Omar Bashir, contained in the Clinton presidential records.”

According to the NARA report, a subsequent letter from a National Security Council official dated May 14, 2002, said Berger was repeatedly briefed that “he was not allowed to remove any documentation from NARA.” But he did. Now we know that we don’t know how many documents he may actually have taken and what was in or on them.

Another jaw dropper from other reports was that when the National Archive staff realized there was a problem, the first person they called was Bruce Lindsey, long-time Clinton consigliere.

Does anyone seriously think that Bill and Hillary Clinton didn’t know what Sandy Berger was up to, and what was in those documents he destroyed?

For all the clueless commenters who insist that I’m a conservative, you can’t imagine the clutter in my office. Or my many bookcases full of a wide variety of books.

Also, on the fear of death thing, that must explain why the military, fire and police departments are so overrun with liberals.

Articles like this are why so many people have trouble taking psychologists seriously, particularly academic ones. As Tyler says, at a minimum, it would have been useful to have more than two categories. Though it would still be nonsensical. Just more on the continuing Berkeley theme that “conservatism” is a mental disorder.

…of good enough. This is the oldest story in military procurement:

Pentagon sources tell NBC News

…to revisit his sentencing:

The House committee report said Berger was never given a polygraph test despite having agreed to it as part of his plea bargain with the Justice Department in 2005.

This seems like a weird case where a House committee did a better job of investigating than the Justice Department. Of course, I suspect that the Justice Department still has a lot of Clinton apparatchiks in it, despite six years of a Republican White House. That doesn’t explain the Attorney General’s behavior, though.

By “environmentalists.” Looks like an interesting documentary.

I scored a 31, but it’s really meaningless, because for many of the questions, in my mind, the answer was “neither of the above,” but that wasn’t an option. Of course, one knew right out of the box that it was a stupid test, because it assumes that people can be put on a one-dimensional scale of “liberal/conservative.” I’d like to know how Glenn answered differently from me to get a lower score.

I agree with him, in that I don’t consider myself anything on that scale, and certainly not a “moderate.” There’s a cretin over at sci.space.policy who, whenever I inform him that I’m neither a Republican or Democrat, or Conservative or “Liberal,” invariably says, “then you’re a moderate?”

No. As Glenn says, I’m an extremist, but an eclectic one.

[Saturday morning update]

Volokh has more. Note the commenter who has analyzed the Javascript, and found liberal bias:

You start out as fully liberal, and whenever you give the conservative response, it gives you a certain number of points. Therefore, not answering a question is equivalent to giving the liberal answer. All responses give you one point except the first, which gives you two. If a liberal would check a checkbox, its value is ignored, so even if you don’t check it, it doesn’t affect your score.

So, if I’d done what I wanted to do in many cases, and left the question blank, because it was so mindless, I’d have probably scored as a “liberal.” Note all the idiot stereotypes and false choices implied by the questions. As many noted, if I were teaching a political science (now there’s an oxymoron) class, I’d flunk whoever came up with this thing.

I scored a 31, but it’s really meaningless, because for many of the questions, in my mind, the answer was “neither of the above,” but that wasn’t an option. Of course, one knew right out of the box that it was a stupid test, because it assumes that people can be put on a one-dimensional scale of “liberal/conservative.” I’d like to know how Glenn answered differently from me to get a lower score.

I agree with him, in that I don’t consider myself anything on that scale, and certainly not a “moderate.” There’s a cretin over at sci.space.policy who, whenever I inform him that I’m neither a Republican or Democrat, or Conservative or “Liberal,” invariably says, “then you’re a moderate?”

No. As Glenn says, I’m an extremist, but an eclectic one.

[Saturday morning update]

Volokh has more. Note the commenter who has analyzed the Javascript, and found liberal bias:

You start out as fully liberal, and whenever you give the conservative response, it gives you a certain number of points. Therefore, not answering a question is equivalent to giving the liberal answer. All responses give you one point except the first, which gives you two. If a liberal would check a checkbox, its value is ignored, so even if you don’t check it, it doesn’t affect your score.

So, if I’d done what I wanted to do in many cases, and left the question blank, because it was so mindless, I’d have probably scored as a “liberal.” Note all the idiot stereotypes and false choices implied by the questions. As many noted, if I were teaching a political science (now there’s an oxymoron) class, I’d flunk whoever came up with this thing.

I scored a 31, but it’s really meaningless, because for many of the questions, in my mind, the answer was “neither of the above,” but that wasn’t an option. Of course, one knew right out of the box that it was a stupid test, because it assumes that people can be put on a one-dimensional scale of “liberal/conservative.” I’d like to know how Glenn answered differently from me to get a lower score.

I agree with him, in that I don’t consider myself anything on that scale, and certainly not a “moderate.” There’s a cretin over at sci.space.policy who, whenever I inform him that I’m neither a Republican or Democrat, or Conservative or “Liberal,” invariably says, “then you’re a moderate?”

No. As Glenn says, I’m an extremist, but an eclectic one.

[Saturday morning update]

Volokh has more. Note the commenter who has analyzed the Javascript, and found liberal bias:

You start out as fully liberal, and whenever you give the conservative response, it gives you a certain number of points. Therefore, not answering a question is equivalent to giving the liberal answer. All responses give you one point except the first, which gives you two. If a liberal would check a checkbox, its value is ignored, so even if you don’t check it, it doesn’t affect your score.

So, if I’d done what I wanted to do in many cases, and left the question blank, because it was so mindless, I’d have probably scored as a “liberal.” Note all the idiot stereotypes and false choices implied by the questions. As many noted, if I were teaching a political science (now there’s an oxymoron) class, I’d flunk whoever came up with this thing.

One more sign that that age of the British Empire is long past:

A senior officer, currently serving with the Fleet in Portsmouth, said: “What this means is that we are now no better than a coastal defence force or a fleet of dug-out canoes. The Dutch now have a better navy than us.”

Defence sources said it would be unlikely that the Navy could now launch an armada of the kind that retook the Falkland Islands in 1982.

Steve Bush, editor of the monthly magazine Warship World, said the MoD was bankrupt following the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“After 10 years of Labour government, the Royal Navy is on its knees without immediate and proper funding. I cannot see how it can recover

If this defection to the Conservatives happens tomorrow, you know that the Liberals in Canada are going to sound like this.