Dog's Breakfast

Okay, am I getting this straight? This information is from snippets picked up at various times in passing from the radio, so I can't give specific references, but what I heard (starting early this week) was: An investigation was started because it appeared Sandy Berger might have walked off with some National Archive confidential documents or notes - in fact, right from the start, when this came up, I heard it was about his own handwritten notes which he might absent-mindedly have forgotten to get approved before he left. Then a day later I hear that he was supposed to have "stuffed documents into his socks" (try that sometime) and in short the whole thing was made to sound deliberate and sinister instead of accidental, unlike the first report. Then the kerfuffle squawked loudly on all this week while the Democratic convention was in progress. Then I hear that the investigation actually began months ago.

A day after the convention was over, I heard "Sandy is cleared of all wrongdoing."

How transparent can these characters get? (You know what characters I mean.) Why the hell does the media even pick up blatantly phony stories like this? It was never plausible in the first place that the guy would deliberately steal anything.


I worry about democracy in a nation where this kind of moronic nonsense repeats itself time and time again, where voters are so appallingly ignorant they will buy ads equating somebody like Max Cleland with Osama Bin Laden and vote him out. Do they want a government of nothing but stooges?