Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
but they don't look so absurdly, ridiculously gappy.This is only a statement that you understand how cassette recorders work, but have no clue as to how IT departments and government policy works.Believe me, or don't, but emails missing from archives that are expressly required to be archived, in this day and age look very odd indeed.As I recall, you and your friends demanded an inquiry into this when something lesser happened in the Clenis White House.Forget the Clenis, even Oliver North knows (now) about PROFS, and that was back when you were backing the Contras during the 80s.Or for even more analysis and speculation, listen to former Prosecutor ReddHedd.
Gee, how did I know he'd show up?This may be a lot more complicated than the article you linked, Ms. Althouse. In fact, it may be taken completely out of context from the details in this article.http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200602021424.aspWhich is why I read as much as I do. There seems to always be a bit more somewhere else.Verification: ywcmy - which sounds vaguely obscene....
Ann was backing the Contras in the 1980s? Funny, I never saw her at the meetings with G. Gordon Liddy.A gap in the email archives is suspicious, and worthy of investigation. But it doesn't automatically mean the records were purposely deleted. I've seen errors like this in the business world. IT departments can screw up just like everyone else. So let Fitzgerald investigate and see what he finds before getting bent.Quxxo, you're inference that Ann supports everything every Republican ever did is just weak. And Clenis? What the hell is that supposed to mean?Really, do yourself a favor: just state your case and quit trying to be clever. It would be more effective.
If I remember the lost Clinton/Gore e-mails situation correctly, the GOP was demanding an investigation and the Dems were reminding everyone that honest mistakes happen. It would probably behoove both sides to try to be consistent on the issue.I googled "clenis" and apparently it refers to Bill Clinton's genitalia.
Goatwhacker, thanks for the Clenis explanation. I think.The politicians are being consistent. They are doing whatever they think will do their sides the most good.
A couple of cautionary notes: 1. Not all mistakes are purposeful. sh_t happens.2. Unlike Rosemary Woods, It is highly unlikely that the contractor employees in the basement got secret instructions from Karl Rove. 3. like the explanation in the previous Clinton email gap investigation, the WH has a hell of a lot of back-ups to do, the fact that they can't locate archive tapes/cds from 3 years ago is incompetent (given their mandate) but not likely criminal.Fire somebody, don't prosecute them
Quxxo: You have quite the tin ear!
Rosemary Woods was getting secret instructions from Karl Rove?! Who knew!My immediate apologies, Drill Sgt. I know what you're saying. I just couldn't resist.One thing I find interesting about these gaps is the chance that none of the lost material is incriminating. In Rosemary Woods case, assume that her explanation is correct. If so, odds are that nothing that important was erased. But the void draws our attention. We want to give it meaning. Thus, religion.
Quxxo: You have quite the tin ear! No argument from me, but then can I ask you to expand your comments to make it clear to those of us that are tone deaf?
"Which is why I read as much as I do. There seems to always be a bit more somewhere else."gaius, you're obviously very proud of the fact that you read more than one blog. Too bad you don't absorb what you read. The NRO article is a continuation of the misdirection that the Republicans, as well as Libby's lawyers, continue to spew in hopes that the actual facts of the case will be obscured. Whether there is an assessment of the damage done by revealing Plame's identity or not is irrelevant. The NRO article goes to great lengths to discuss whether such an assessment exists. Well guess what? Libby's not charged with revealing her identity. He's charged with lying to the Grand Jury about his actions. And the issue of missing e-mails goes directly to obstruction of justice.The Republicans continue to try and spin the story that Plame's status will determine Libby's guilt or innocence. But the minute he decided to lie to the prosecutor and Grand Jury, her status became moot.This is not to say that I know what the missing e-mails contain, and I'm certainly not conceding that Plame's status wasn't classified. But your posting of that link in response to this discussion leads me to believe that you're buying into that misdirection.
You can't "explain" music to the tone deaf, Q.
Offtopic, but Ann, would you please post an update on the Doughy Pantload? What did you think of his "talk?" Was he an it-getter?
Q: I didn't go. It's a busy week for me. Not that I didn't watch American Idol and Project Runway last night, which all the world can see...
Truly, sincerely, frankly, seriously, honestly, I think you made a wise choice for your time....OTOH, it would have been fun reading your takedown of Mr. Pantload.
Yeah, well, now, rethink you reaction to the original post. It was totally obtuse.
My original post? Like in August or something? Boy I've forgotten all about that one! You should too.
Here are some blogger's reactions to the talk last night. Apparently there was more than enough room for you and many many many of your friends.Goldberg: "Some say that Native Americans were great environmentalists don't know history. Some think that Indians were like a Disney movie, with Indians talking to bunnies. The great plains used to be a giant forest. The Indians burnt it to the ground to hunt buffalo.Freedom Fighters Blog: Interesting. I am not entirely sure about the latter comment.But the Doughy Pantload did manage to break a chair. Snerk! Are you sure you weren't there? A couple of blogs claim to have spotted you. (There is another sighting of you in Atrios' comments, but it is not very respectful, so discretion being the better part....)So I apologize if my first post in this thread was obtuse. It helps if you click on the blue underlined phrases, and also helpful if you are friends with Mr. Google.
Is quxxo some sort of online version of annoying children's heroine Amelia Bedelia, misinterpreting ordinary idioms of the English language to the bemusement of all who read?The vaudeville act is wearing thin.
Quxxo's got a tin brain.Is referring to someone as "Doughy Pantload" an acceptable part of the discourse now?
Look at ME!Look at ME!Look at ME!Look at ME!(To what or whom could I possibly be referring?)
1) Sheesh, XWL, I didn't even remember that post I wrote (two weeks into starting my blog, no less) until I saw 2 or 3 "Entry Pages" on my sitemeter.Sometimes (actually, it's verging on frequently at this point) that some of my readers are more familiar with my site than I am, for crying out loud.I do see how it applies, though--the Dilbert link and your Quxxo spoof.2) Now I'm confused. At the time I wrote that post, I thought Quxxo was male, obviously. But I thought since then, on one of Ann's blogposts, that it had been determined that He is a She?3) Unless she looks absolutely nothing like her picture, Quxxo, Ann was not at Goldberg's speech, which she--very specifically, I'm guessing--never said she was going to attend, I don't think. There weren't so many people there that she wouldn't have stuck out, I should think.4)Also, Quxxo, I must say you've outdone yourself this time. I'd count the number of OT topics you've introduced into this comment thread, not to mention non-sequiturs, but I've already done too much detail work tonight and my eyes are crossed.Ann, if I'm responding on-topic to someone's off-topic digressions, does that make my comment more "on-topic" or "off-topic"?(Then again, look what I did to your comment thread on the post just previous to this one, in which I ended up making a reference to flashers. Sigh.)
I grab my Great Dane by her jowls, shake her head and say, "I'm not a crook!"Thanks, Rosemary
Post a Comment