|
|
CYA
Posted by Stephen Green · 20 July 2004
I have a more than passing familiarity with pants. When you've got skinny legs like mine, you learn all about pants. You learn which pants give you the illusion of having a rear end. You learn that when wearing a suit, you also wear suspenders. Because for really thin guys, like for really fat guys, pants held up with suspenders drape better than those worn with a belt. You learn – or at least ought to damn well learn – not to try to wear your jeans fashionably (read: "stupidly") down below your hips, because they just won't stay on that way. Instead, you pull your jeans up high and cinch them with a belt. You also pray to Whomever that your pathetic attempt to keep your pants up doesn't result in – how do I phrase this nicely? – an unsightly bulge up front. When you've got silly legs, three generations of clotheshorses preceding you, a little bit of money and a smattering of taste, you get to know pants intimately. So I know pants. And I like my pants – but I don't always like to wear them. Show me a hot tub, and the pants are coming off. If it's after dark, or at least in a neighborhood nice enough that the cops aren't on patrol, then what's under them is coming off, too. Give me a cocktail or nine and some friendly company, and there's a good chance my pants will end up on the floor long before I do. But that's just the life-of-the-party side of me, and one of the few things about my life marriage has yet to change. Although I'm certain my bride is working on it. This would probably be a good time to tell the story about the first time I did tequila shots, and how I lost my pants at BC's Tavern in Eureka, California, and how I just barely avoided going to jail that night. I would tell that story, but you've got the gist of it already, methinks. And pants is a fun word to say. As Jeff Goldstein might write: Are those your pants? Or as David Letterman's voiceover guy has been saying for years, "World Wide Pants – the world leader in entertainment, and pants." Go on and say it out loud with me, even if you're in a meeting at work. "Pants pants pants pants pants pants pants." Fun, isn't it? But today, for once, I'm not thinking about my pants. I'm not, at least not at this very moment, even thinking about what's in my pants. I'm – oh dear Whomever save me – thinking about Sandy Berger's pants. And I'm – oh dear Whomever there's no hope for me is there? – thinking about what's inside Sandy Berger's pants: Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed handwritten notes he had made while reading classified anti-terror documents at the archives by sticking them in his jacket and pants. That's right – the former National Security Advisor to President Clinton stuffed classified information down his pants and walked (a bit oddly, I'd wager) to his car. So that I might not be labeled a partisan hack, let me first say something in Sandy's defense – at least he didn't also have a shredder down there. Because you just know that Fawn Hall could have destroyed top secret documents with a top-secret spy device hidden in her not-so-Top-Secret cotton thong. And before we continue with this sad excuse for an essay, let us be thankful that I didn't use this segue to force you to picture Sandy Berger in a cotton thong. Now then. The fact that Berger stole classified data doesn't bother me. The fact that he stuffed them down his pants doesn't bother me. God knows, I've stuffed enough inappropriate items down my pants to make both Berger and Hall blush, and then get them so hot and bothered that they'd have to make out. Nope, those two facts don't bother me at all. (On the other hand, I'm slightly drunk. Ask me in the morning if the thought bothers me, of Sandy Berger and Fawn Hall, with their unmentionables filled with Top Secret memos, making out on a White House basement desk, and I'm likely to throw up on your lap.) Let me tell you what bothers me. Berger was the National Security Advisor who was so hidebound by legalities, that he told his boss not to accept Sudan's offer to turn over Osama bin Laden to us back in 1996: "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States," said Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, who was deputy national security adviser then. Eight years ago, Osama wasn't exactly on the top of our National Worry List. But we knew of him, we knew of his declaration of war against us, and we knew he'd already attacked us. So who cares if we didn't have enough to indict him? There are quiet ways of permanently dealing with our enemies, assuming we can get our hands on them. Clinton had the chance, served up on a platter. Sandy Berger worried about the legal niceties and, five years later, 3,000 Americans were killed in New York, in Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon. And some of the blame for that rests at the document-stuffed shoes of Sandy Berger. One of the National Security Advisor's jobs is to tell the President that something nasty has to be done to some even nastier person. Berger, more concerned with legalities than with national security (which should be the Attorney General's job, not the NSA's), told Clinton to let Osama go. And yet not even that is what bothers me. What bothers me – and what should bother you – is that the man who was too concerned with the law to get Osama when he had the chance, was rather cavalier about the law when it came to shoving classified items down his 46-inch waistband. Sandy Berger covered his ass, quite literally, with the papers which, just might, show how he inadvertently helped Osama bin Laden murder the asses of 3,000 of Berger's fellow Americans. Once, when I was young and foolish, I almost spent the night in jail for dropping trou in public. What should become of Sandy Berger for stuffing his? Comments
You know, when the article mentioned putting notes in his pants, I assumed he meant his pockets. Nobody else seems to have, though. Weird. Posted by: Alex Knapp at July 20, 2004 02:08 AMBergers last job was for Clinton, His current job is for Kerry. That, it seems to me is much more relevent. In the words of Liam Dunn in the movie What's Up Doc: Thats.......Unbelievable. Now heres the deal. He had to know what to look for, so someone told him. ( Richard Ben-Veniste, call your office!) He had to know that he would be found out, but decided that this was far better than having that information exposed, which tells you what about what he stole? Berger is making the case that they were taken inadvertantly, which then begs the statement "ok then johnny-sticky-fingers, bring it back... oh you cant find it anymore.....what a surprise. So here we go kids, a week before the democrats go to boston to make their big show, and we have a watergate size scandal on the table. I get the feeling that Karl Rove is in his office sounding like Mr Burns saying " Smithers!, release the hounds!" Posted by: Frank Martin at July 20, 2004 02:16 AMI noted that NBC's Today Show thinks the only scandal here is the timing of the leak. Poor Mr. Berger hadn't been notified by the investigators, hadn't even heard from them in weeks, and now this. Innocent Mr. Berger INADVERTENTLY took those notes and papers. Yeah, right. And Katie Couric swallows. Even if the timing is political, it doesn't give Berger a pass. Well, maybe it does. Posted by: Joan of Argghh! at July 20, 2004 07:03 AMYou like and are amused by pants?! Well, enjoy this song: "Tribute To Pants"
[On the SOL:] CROW: Joel, I hate movies where the men wear shorter skirts than the women. TOM: Boy, don'tcha know it. I can just imagine a common scene from the days of ancient Greece: "Oh, hi Hercules, have a seat. Noooo ah-oh!" JOEL: You are so right, little [?] buddy. Hey Cambot, cue up the music. That's why we've put together a little musical presentation honoring one of our favorite garments. It's a little thing we like to call "Pants!" TOM: [singing] Pants! CROW: Pants! TOM & CROW: Sing the praises of pants! JOEL: Nothing better shows my taste TOM: Say pants! Hoo hoo! TOM & CROW: Sing the praises of pants! TOM: They help me suck in my gut, CROW: Pants! ALL: Sing the praises of pants! CROW: Wear them and you're a cool guy TOM: Zip! TOM & CROW: Pants! ALL: Sing the praises of pants! JOEL: [speaking] That's right, ladies and gentlemen. Consider the pant. You know, the Pant Association urges you to wear your pants at least three times a day. CROW: The great men of our time have all worn pants. Roosevelt, Churchill, de Gaulle, Ghandi -- well, almost all of them. TOM: Dolphins. One of the smartest mammals on Earth. Do they wear pants? No, but they wish they did. That's how smart they are! JOEL: What keeps our legs all warm and hot? TOM & CROW: Pants! CROW: What prevents a buffalo shot? TOM: What do they got that I ain't got? JOEL: Pants. CROW: Cut. TOM: Oh, you can say that again. Huh? -- the tune is catchy, too...find a wav file on the internet and sing along! I followed the link to Fawn Hall and was disappointed there was no picture. What a babe. The Dems are in full meltdown mode. Posted by: Reid at July 20, 2004 07:30 AMAnything that is related to the 9/11 commission is already colored. Jamie Gorelick, the Clinton plant, is still on the commission. Philip Zelikow is freaking directing the staff of this commission. This is THE guy that handled the National Security Adviser transition from Berger to Rice. I decided around March that this commission was nothing short of a government attempt to cover up its own failures. Today I conclude that the only losers are the American People. Except for Berger, Zelikow, Gorelick and crew. Posted by: Brennan Stout at July 20, 2004 07:41 AMHah. I needed this laugh. It turns out that Philip Zelikow wrote an essay for a book edited by Joseph Nye. The title of this book "Why People Don't Trust the Government". Hahahaha. I feel so much better now. Posted by: Brennan Stout at July 20, 2004 07:47 AMI wonder what Fahn looks like these days. In her day, she was awesome though. This site definitely needs a link to her picture Posted by: John at July 20, 2004 07:48 AMHe stuffed some in a portfolio, stuffed some in his jacket, stuffed some in his pants . . . egads, the man was so stuffed he must have looked like Michael Moore walking out of there. Posted by: M Jankowski at July 20, 2004 08:00 AMAs someone who loves the word "pants", you'll like this. Someone (with too much time on their hands) has discovered that lines from Star Wars that can be improved if you substitute the word "Pants" for key words: ================================================= We've got to be able to get some reading on those pants, up or down. The pants may not look like much, kid, but they've got it where it counts. I find your lack of pants disturbing. Many bobans died to bring us these pants. These pants contain the ultimate power in the Universe. I suggest we use it. Han will have those pants down. We've got to give him more time! General Veers, prepare your pants for a ground assault. I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants back home. TK-421... Why aren't you in your pants? Lock the door. And hope they don't have pants. You are unwise to lower your pants. She must have hidden the plans in her pants. Send a detachment down to retrieve them. See to it personally Commander. Governor Tarkin. I recognized your foul pants when I was brought on board. You look strong enough to pull the pants of a Gundark. Luke... Help me remove these pants. Great, Chewie, great. Always thinking with your pants. That blast came from those pants. That thing's operational! Luke.....I am your pants. A tremor in the pants. The last time I felt this was in the presence of my old master. Don't worry. Chewie and I have gotten into a lot of pants more heavily guarded than this. Maybe you'd like it back in your pants, your highness. Luke, search your pants. You know it is true. Your pants betray you. Your feelings for them are strong. Especially one... Your sister! Jabba doesn't have time for smugglers who drop their pants at the first sign of an Imperial Cruiser. Short pants is better than no pants at all. Posted by: moe at July 20, 2004 08:26 AMYou are so right, little [?] buddy. Itty. Little itty buddy. Posted by: Angie Schultz at July 20, 2004 08:28 AMYou are so right, little [?] buddy. Itty. Little itty buddy. Posted by: Angie Schultz at July 20, 2004 08:28 AMWhat should happen to Sandy Berger? Let's use what happened to Martha Stewart as a yardstick. She went to jail not for insider-trading, which the government couldn't prove, but for a lie about her behavior. How important was that? Now how important was Sandy Berger's removing classified material from the archives - material which was presumably so damaging that Berger was willing to be caught stealing classified material in order to hide it from the public. The stolen material is presumably about things that went horribly wrong - procedures that didn't work, people who showed atrocious judgment. Berger's theft of this material means the public doesn't find out all of what went wrong in the run-up to 9/11 and so cannot adequately modify structures and processes to defend against another attack. How important is that? Martha got five months. How many Marthas should Berger get for deciding that his and Clinton's asses are more important than safety of their fellow citizens? 100? 1000? Posted by: Patrick Brown at July 20, 2004 08:32 AM
Posted by: CERDIP at July 20, 2004 08:35 AM
I had no idea that the "inadvertent" excuse actually worked. So if Barker, Gonzalez, Martinez, Sturgis and McCord had claimed that they had "inadvertently" entered the DNC headquarters at the Watergate hotel, we would have heard nothing else about it. Posted by: mailman at July 20, 2004 08:41 AMCERDIP: The link doesn't work. I found another pic though. Posted by: Brennan Stout at July 20, 2004 08:58 AMInadvertent is rapidly catching up to "literally" and "taken out of context" as the most misused expression in America. Posted by: ricky at July 20, 2004 09:20 AMUm, Steve, do you give much warning before your pants hit the floor? On the off chance you and I are ever at a social event together now, I will not be able to keep a straight face, no matter what. Posted by: Lance at July 20, 2004 09:41 AM
Posted by: Anachronda at July 20, 2004 10:42 AM
how do I phrase this nicely? – an unsightly bulge up front. the correct term is: mooseknuckles. I wonder if the urbane and eclectic Daulton Lee will have something to say about this. Posted by: ransom at July 20, 2004 11:00 AMSeriously, you're the former NSA, sitting in the govt reading room, with your top secret GOVERNMENT documents layed out on the table so that you can review what you did & said. You carefully check out certain copies for your careful review. You've got the hall monitor standing at her desk outside the door with her list of docs you've checked out. But wait, you Sandy Berger, INADVERTENTLY, slip some other documents/notes into your pants pockets, or maybe your suit pocket??? I mean COME ON!!! Posted by: Lloyd at July 20, 2004 11:14 AMI get the feeling that Karl Rove is in his office sounding like Mr Burns saying " Smithers!, release the hounds!" Posted by: Frank Martin And I get the feeling that Karl Rove is in his office, steepling his fingers, sounding like Mr Burns saying " Eeeexcellent!" Posted by: Ernie G at July 20, 2004 11:57 AM"mooseknuckles"? Is that the masculine equivalent of "camel toe"? Just curious. Oh, and re: Mr. Berger: If he won't come clean, I say, sue his pants off!!! Posted by: Mary in LA at July 20, 2004 12:04 PMMoe, I'm reading this at work (I confess) and I almost suffocated choking back peals of laughter! I have seen that list before, and it's just as funny the second time around. But you forgot one of the funniest ones: Grand Moff Tarkin: "Evacuate? In our pants?" Posted by: Mary in LA at July 20, 2004 12:07 PMInteresting Berger link: http://www.newsmax.com/cgi-bin/showinside.pl?a=2003/6/22/140449.txt. Listen to the Clinton audio at the end of the article. Posted by: tibor at July 20, 2004 12:39 PMACCIDENTLY sticking papers in his PANTS?! It has been my experience that men are very, very aware of what is in their pants at every single moment. What the hell was Berger up to that he could be rooting around in his pants and not know it, huh? What about paper cuts?! Didn't he make a crinkling noise as he walked? This is just so much BS. I'd say Berger is nuts, but with the paper cuts there's just no justification for assuming he has any left. Posted by: bkayel at July 20, 2004 12:47 PMI don't think Mr. Berger needs the suspenders though. "Sandy Berger in a cotton thong." Eeeeewwww gross! Posted by: Ron - WI at July 20, 2004 03:37 PMThe "pants-oriented dialogue" game works with "Blade Runner", too: "If only you could see what I've seen through your pants." "...which didn't make me feel any better about shooting a woman in the pants." "I want more pants, f***er." "I've seen pants you people wouldn't believe." "Those aren't your pants; they're Tyrell's niece's." And so on... One more: "A new life awaits you in the Off-Pants Colonies!" Two more! "Quite an experience to live in pants, isn't it?" Three more! "Lemme tell you about my pants... (BLAM!)" Arrrrgh... that's enough. Posted by: Golem14 at July 20, 2004 06:18 PM"...be thankful that I didn't use this segue to force you to picture Sandy Berger in a cotton thong." Nice use of apophasis. Actually, kinda nasty. Posted by: Nation X Gore at July 21, 2004 07:25 AMHe just folded some notes and stuck them in his pockets, plus a couple copies of a memo (not originals) in his leather portfolio. It's just the right wing noise machine that wants you to think he did a Fawn Hall. Here's a summary and analysis: http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230001 |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"If Janeane Garofalo had ever met VodkaPundit, she'd be Anne Coulter by now."
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
     |
