Good piece, worth reading, with a couple of complaints.

1) I grow tired of our conservative brethren making pussy arguments-in-the-alternative, as Goldberg does here. You know this argument: "Even if Sandy Berger did 'inadvertently' take these documents, it still shows a reckless disregard for security."

Can we, like, knock it off with this fucking bullshit? We all know it's a goddamned lie that he "inadvertently" took any fucking thing. So let's not make the liberals' case for them by suggesting, with a straight face, that jeepers, maybe he did "inadvertently" stuff codeword-clearance documents down his shorts and walk out with them (and then, ahem, "inadvertently discard" some of them).

Stop paying lip service to these ridiculous alibis. It only emboldens the liberal media to begin treating these outlandish fictions as plausible. After all, if even Jonah Goldberg of NRO thinks this is possible, who's to say Berger is being less than forthright?

Here's the plot, guys:

He lied.

He stole the documents deliberately.

We don't know his motive for this theft, but there is no possible innocent motive for stealing the documents.

Proceed from there.

2) Goldberg calls the documents in question "'password' class documents." Maybe I'm out of the loop on security jargon, but I've always heard it as "codeword-clearance documents."

In case you don't know, secrets are organized into three general strata:

Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret. (Most Secret for the British, who have to be fairies even when naming security classifications.) (Thanks to Tom-- I called the "Confidential" classification "Classified." Inadvertently, of course.)

Except here's the thing: None of that bullshit is really all that secret. It's stamped "confidential" or "secret," but that stuff is really on the very bottom of the secrecy mountain. The really important secrets begin after Top Secret.

FBI agents are Top Secret cleared, so they could, I guess, see most Top Secret information they requested. They have a general security clearance to see Top Secret materials.

But the really important stuff is called "codeword-clearance;" and there is no general clearance to see such materials. You have to be specifically clerared to read specific documents.

Different but related secrets are grouped into families, I guess you'd call them, and if you are high-enough ranking and deemed trustworthy enough and you specifically need to know those secrets to do your job, you're cleared for that family of secrets. (Tom, in the comments, says that codeword-clearance isn't a separate classification per se, but is rather a limitation to the other classifications. So classified information may be deemed Secret-Codeword or Top Secret-Codeword.)

So, if you're working on WMD tips in Fallujah, that might be called Voodoo Lightning, and only persons cleared to see Voodoo Lightning documents can see them. Someone might outrank you in the heirarchy -- he might even be the Undersecretary of Defense -- but if he isn't himself Voodoo Lightning cleared, you can't tell him anything about Voodoo Lightning. Even if he orders you to.

There's a bit about that in the movie Enigma, where an Admiral asks the hero how they broke the Enigma code, and the hero just says, "I can't tell you that." On the other hand, a mere lieutenant serving with him is Ultra-cleared (Ultra being the codeword for the secret techniques of breaking Enigma), so he can share information with him. Only those who absolutely need-to-know get cleared to see the information; that limits the number of people who could spill the beans. (Geoff, in the comments, points out that even when you're codeword-cleared, there may be some secrets in that area you're not privy to; utimately, it's all need to know. Enigma also showed this, as the lieutenant was generally privy to Ultra secrets -- like the fact they were using the German Weather Codes as a backdoor or "crib" into Enigma -- but he didn't know the Great Big Super Secret of Ultra, that they were using a primative computer, which they called a "bombe," to mechanically break the codes.)

At any rate, I've never heard it called "password" clearance, but I only know what I read in books and see in the movies. Maybe that's the hip new way to refer to it; I know jargon changes in organizations.

The main take-away from this digression is that the stuff Sandy Berger stole -- and that is the right word -- was some pretty high-security shit. If it were just "Classified" or "Secret" documents, we might make some allowances, knowing that such documents aren't really very well protected secrets. But these were codeword-clearance documents, so these really were genuine secrets with genuinely high security guarding their dissemination.

So How Come We Never Hear About Codeword-Clearance Secrets? Because the codewords themselves are codeword-clearance. You have to be Ultra-cleared to even be told that Ultra is the codeword for the techniques of breaking the Enigma code.

Pat Monynihan was on 60 Minutes one time and he dismissed all secrets of Top Secret or less as not secret at all. The interviewer (maybe Steve Krofft) asked him, "Okay, what are the real secrets called then? To which Monynihan just said, "I can't tell you. What they're called is itself a secret."

Interesting Bit of Trivia: Tom points out that the "juiciest" secrets -- by which I think he means the most interesting to actually know -- are actually often of a lower-classification, like Confidential or Secret, while the very top classifications are reserved for those old "sources and methods." He says that the very Top Secret-codeword stuff is often boring, at least in the SIGINT field he worked in, because it's mostly dry technical-method material.

Kind of interesting. Makes sense: What you know has to be shared with more people, and so it often is less restricted. On the other hand, how you came to know it doesn't need to be shared with anyone outside of those doing the actual collection, so it's often of a higher classification level.

Plus, it's more important in the sense that it's not just a fish, it's a fruitful method of fishing, and as long as you keep your secret fishing technique from the enemy, you'll have further fish in the future.

Posted by: Ace at 08:42 PM | Comments (13)
Post contains 1039 words, total size 7 kb.

There's a virus going around, sent in emails promising Osama is dead or "has been captured" or "has been hanged." CNN is often cited as the source. The email then directs you to open a file/link, which contains a virus.

As they say on Hill Street Blues, which was almost as good as NYPD Blue (except that it didn't feature enough hairy man-ass for my tastes), "Be careful out there."

Posted by: Ace at 08:14 PM | Comments (2)
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

Scout mentioned in a comment she was feeling downbeat about the election. I've been downbeat myself.

Real Clear Politics, however, shines a little sunlight through the clouds. If any of you read that AP article, New Poll Smiles on Kerry, you may have gotten the impression that Kerry had the momentum.

And you may have gotten that impression because that was the sub-hed: Despite tie, momentum is with Democrat. Odd that a poll showing a tie could be spun so glowingly.

RealClearPolitics digests the most recent polls and discovers that, in fact, the momentum recently has been with Bush, completely erasing the Edwards microbounce.

For some more hopeful analysis, try this den Beste piece. He's predicting a "masterstroke" for Bush soon.

Similarly, The American Digest thinks this campaign has so far been like the Afghanistan campaign, where a lot of damage is being done to the opposing forces, hollowing them out, weakening them for a coming onslaught, but the battlelines aren't moving... yet.

I'm not sure I'm persuaded by either, but they're certainly interesting pieces.

And if none of that gives you hope, then maybe this will. We gots Jon Voight on our side. (Maybe.) (Skip down to end of transcript.)

Jon Voight. Hey, not too shabby. I shoulda known he was conservative-leaning based on his performance in Anaconda. I know he was "the bad guy," but let's face it, that hunter he was playing was so Republican it hurt. And, of course, he was much more interesting than the progressive-liberal girlie-men types on that boat.

I cried when he died at the end. He was a man with a dream. A dream of catching a 70 foot long anaconda, and then... uhh, I don't know. It was never really clear. What the hell do you do with a 70 foot long anaconda? You can get a Leno and Letterman appearance, sure, but it's not as if you can get rich by owning a big snake.

Posted by: Ace at 01:26 PM | Comments (16)
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.

Peter Gammons of ESPN notes John Kerry's, err, rather sketchy knowledge about the game he professes to love so much:

So who puts the bug in candidates' ears about seeming what they are not? John Kerry last week professed to be a big fan of "Manny Ortez," then re-emphasized the phoofery by correcting it to "David Ortez." No, that was Dave (Baby) Cortez and "The Happy Organ." A few years back Kerry went on a Boston station with Eddie Andelman and said "my favorite Red Sox player of all time is The Walking Man, Eddie Yost," who never played for the Red Sox. Kerry is going to sweep New England. He's going to get 70 percent of the vote in Massachusetts. He doesn't have to be a Red Sox fan, all he has to do is not be John Ashcroft.

Maybe he and Hillary -- a huge Yankee fan, remember; her passion for the Yankees began during her youth in Chicago, which only had two hometown teams -- can make one of those "wacky politician-to-politician sports bets."

If Hillary's beloved Yankees do worse than John Kerry's Red Sox, Hillary will buy Kerry a year's worth of botox treaments. If Kerry's Sox fare better, he will provide Hillary with his actual position on the Iraq War.

Thanks to Kausfiles.

But here's the thing: Son of Nixon has been pounding this Kerry gaffe for months. I'm glad to see that someone else finally noticed.

Posted by: Ace at 12:20 PM | Comments (9)
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

Comedy is all about incongruity.

I find this album cover very incongruous.

Posted by: Ace at 12:11 PM | Comments (2)
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

Weren't Wal-Marts supposed to be some sort of discount-distrubutor Death Stars or somethin'?

This article now begins whining that in some areas of the country, there just aren't enough supercenter-style markets, creating "food deserts."

Underserved by the evil Wal-Mart empire, rural (and often urban) shoppers are then gouged by mom and pop stores (wait-- weren't they supposed to be the good guys last time we heard?).

These guys really need to get their stories straight.

Thanks to Rich.

Not-So-Self-Serving Update! Wow. This blog's got some wicked buzz.
Now the comments are getting quoted and linked.

MeTooThen's scream-of-consciousness rant, in the comments below, just got linked by Brain Fertilizer.

Nice, MeTooThen! It's pretty good to get link without a blog.

Posted by: Ace at 11:51 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

It's here on NRO.

Every day I thank my lucky stars that we had such an all-around super-genius tough-guy running our terrorism shop.

He will be missed. How on earth will we warn OBL of upcoming attacks without Clarke's diplomatic contacts at our disposal?

Thanks to Clark. A different Clark. One who doesn't look like a retarded Benjamin J. Grimm.

Another NRO Nugget: Clarke (retarded Ben Grimm) feared Osama would "boogie to Baghdad," where he would be impossible to find.

Remember, this is the guy who, in a book pimped for partisan promotion, deemed anyone suspecting any connection between OBL and Iraq to be stupid or insane.

Posted by: Ace at 11:41 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.

Dan Savage is the gay "sexpert" who lied to get a job volunteering for Gary Bauer's goofball 2000 presidential campaign, and then deliberately attempted to spread the flu in the office by rubbing his diseased snot on door-knobs and such.

He's also a big fan of Wonkette, it turns out:

"[Reader's Question to Dan "Biohazard" Savage:] If they not only amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage, Dan, but also put language in there forcing gay guys to marry women, who would get to be the lucky Mrs. Savage?

--Just Curious

[Savage's response:] Wonkette, of course, as she's the only woman I know who likes to talk about ass-fucking as much as I do.

Well, not the only woman. There is always Wonkette's youthful ward Jessica Cutler.

No link. I've got the link, but I don't want to give this loathsome specimen any traffic. If you're determined to read his column, he writes for The Onion's AVClub section.

Thanks to Ryan.

Posted by: Ace at 11:34 AM | Comments (5)
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

Scarborough Country finally put up the transcript of the discussion with Lawrence O'Donnell I mentioned yesterday.

Here's O'Donnell, Democratic operative, dismissing the "Republican leak" claims regarding Berger.

SCARBOROUGH: ... The “CBS Evening News” didn‘t lead with the Berger story last night. Instead, they led with the dramatic body count from Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “CBS EVENING NEWS”)

DAN RATHER, CBS ANCHOR: Almost two a day, that is the rate American troops are dying in Iraq, with the total now approaching 900 since the war began.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCARBOROUGH: Well, when they did finally get around to reporting the Berger story, this is how Dan Rather introduced it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “CBS EVENING NEWS”)

RATHER: Sandy Berger, who was national security adviser under President Clinton, stepped aside today as an adviser to Senator John Kerry. CBS‘ John Roberts reports, this was triggered by carefully orchestrated leak about Berger, and the timing of it appears to be no coincidence.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCARBOROUGH: Lawrence O‘Donnell, let me bring you in here. You can throw some cold water on those of us that believe the media is giving Sandy Berger a free pass.

I want to read for you what “The New York Times” said today about this. They characterized Sandy Berger‘s day on Tuesday this way—quote - - “Mr. Berger endured a day of furious criticism from Republican leaders.” And “The Times” went on to say: “Republicans accused him of stashing the material in his clothing, but Berger called that accusation ‘ridiculous‘ and politically inspired.”

And, Lawrence, I read “The Times” every day. I love the newspaper. But I saw the front page article on the left side. I flipped it over, where it jumped. I read through the entire—and at the very end, you finally got quotes from Republicans. But above that, it was Sandy Berger‘s spokespeople, his friends, his lawyers. It looked like a puff piece for Sandy Berger.

But it wasn‘t the Republicans who accused Berger. It was staffers at the National Archives. Is there a media bias here?

O‘DONNELL: Well, Joe, first of all, here‘s the best newspaper in America putting the story on the front page.

And, yes, everything in the story came from Sandy Berger and his lawyer. It was not leaked. What we know about this story was told to us by Sandy Berger. And every bit of it is nutty. There‘s not one piece of Sandy Berger or his lawyers‘ part in that story that doesn‘t sound crazy when you read it.

Now, the political motivation for this is an awful lot simpler than I am afraid Dan Rather is any longer capable of understanding.

(LAUGHTER)

O‘DONNELL: The big incentive to get this story out comes from the Kerry campaign, not the Bush campaign.

SCARBOROUGH: Why is that?

O‘DONNELL: If you have worked in campaigns, you know that, when you get a bomb that you can throw at the other side, you save it until October. You save it as late as possible.

Imagine, for example, even this story breaking a week later, breaking the day John Kerry was to give his speech in Boston. That is exactly what the Kerry campaign didn‘t want. I think, when we get the journalistic autopsy on this eventually, what you are going to find is Sandy Berger very slowly and very reluctantly and very, very recently told the Kerry campaign that he was being investigated by the FBI.

The Kerry campaign immediately said to him, you have got to make that public right away and we cannot let you go forward without making that public. He makes it public. You watch what happens to the story in 12 hours, and you cut him loose. And you want that to happen as soon as possible. You want it to happen this week, rather than next week. You want it to happen in July, rather than October.

All the incentive to push this story out and get it done with now comes from the Kerry campaign. The Bush campaign‘s incentive would be exactly the opposite.

One question: Will the media begin pillorying the Democrats for their "suspicious timing" regarding the leak? After all, if Republicans are to be condemned for leaking for their own advantage, shouldn't Democrats be likewise condemned?

Posted by: Ace at 11:43 PM | Comments (8)
Post contains 720 words, total size 4 kb.

AllahPundit told me that it just gets better.

He was right.

Also via Allah, this bit of blogger reportage. Claiming inside information, he says that Gartergate is much worse than has been reported so far.

Is what he says true? I have no idea. Is it responsible to link it? Again, I don't know.

But then, Josh Marshall makes claims of similar drama five times a week, and some people still treat him as someone who should be taken seriously.

Plus, the story does have one indica of authenticity: He quotes FBI agents calling Berger "a total asshole," which seems about right.

I suppose the Washington Post would object to my linking this thinly-sourced report; I would just suggest to them that they add "Could this be a coincidence?" to the end of the post to make everything copacetic.

And then there's this. Chapomatic decides to get in on the fun and pilfers a document from the National Archives; the document turns out to be a 1950's era training film on the "Berger Method" of securely storing top-secret documents in one's trousers.

I understand that Chapomatic is now "fully cooperating" with the FBI.

Posted by: Ace at 11:10 PM | Comments (10)
Post contains 215 words, total size 2 kb.