What do you make of the Berger case?

[Jackson4Gore]

What is your take on it? Me, I am very mad if he did break any laws and tried to cover something up. Yes, the timing is suspicious, but it doesn't suprise me. However, these charges are felonies. This would put our people on the level of Bush and Nixon is secrecy and trying to cover things up.

I am so mad about this that I called into CSPAN this morning telling them how dissappointed I was if this is true. I also said we should not be playing into their games by having secrecy and trying to cover things up. My last comment was that it was bad on the Clinton administration. I said it makes people like Mrs. Albright and VP Gore look bad, when they were really trying to fight terrorism.

Please tell me what you think!

[rpannier]

1. If he broke the law

He should be charged.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

2. It's just another attack by KKKarl Rove and

the rest of his buddies in the White House. This was leaked to distract everyone from the publication of the 9-11 Commission Report which will be out tomorrow.

As for Mr. Berger, I sincerely doubt that he stuffed anything down his socks, etc. That is a totally ridiculous accusation. Just look at the people that are making it.

Until I hear or read something to the contrary from a credible source, i.e., not a Repuke shill or from *'s WH, I'll give Mr. Berger the benefit of the doubt.

Whatever happened to the concept of innocent until proven guilty in this country?

[Jackson4Gore]

3. Well

No one is saying he is guilty. I said if it is guilty. It doesn't do Democrats any good to say everything is political. If he did it, it doesn't matter the timing.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

13. Well, I look at it this way. This incident supposedly

occurred last October. If there was anything to this story, wouldn't the so-called media in this country have alerted us to this after Mr. Berger testified before the 9-11 Commission, which I believe he did in April.

I see this as another sign of total desperation on the part of *'s re-selection campaign.

As for Democrats saying everything is political, well, as the old saying goes, "if the shoe fits, wear it".

[shockingelk]

19. Berger or someone else s/would have announced it earlier

Yeah, since October.

There's no way he could think it would stay under wraps forever. That it wasn't immediately leaked was an indication it was being "saved up". The only explanations I can think of are that Berger was stupid in thinking it wouldn't come out, or that he wanted it to come out for some reason.

The other possible explanation is that Berger didn't do anything wrong except break archive procedures, and it wasn't an issue to him. However, I can't imagine losing classified documents removed without permission would not be some kind of crime.

[lanparty]

148. Berger is a thief !!!!

July 21, 2004: Washington DC -

In a surprise move, FBI officials launched a raid on former CLINTON advisor Samuel Berger's boat in attempt to find documents missing from the National Archives. What they found was a treasure trove.

"We never expected to come up with all this stuff". Among the things they found were:
* 20 keyboards from the White House
* The previously missing Air Force One silverwear
* Files previously missing from Hillary Clintons law practice
* The gun that REALLY killed Vince Foster
* A large stack of Presidential Daily briefings from the summer of 2000 addressed to the president.
* Al Capone's vault
* Jimmy Hoffa's severed head
* 2000 copies of the Koran
* A dead girl
* A live boy
* 200 Al-Samud missles capped with Serin Gas warheads
* 100 Scud missles tipped with Anthrax
* 1 embroidered suitcase nuclear bomb bearing the emrodery "With Love, AQ Kahn"

When asked if anything else was found, Attorney General John Ashcroft commented, "We don't know yet. We'll see how the polls go".

[Bettie]

41. If its been under investigation for this long..

It seems that charges would have been brought by now if there is proof that a crime was committed.

I wonder if it needed to be leaked before it all goes away.

I could be wrong though.

[shockingelk]

10. Guess who first made the socks claim?

I'll give you a hint. Initials are R.L.

Bob Franken then picked it up for CNN. Then NewsMax reported on the CNN report, exaggerating it so that three people witnessed Berger stuffing his socks. Then ChronWatch claimed Berger announced he put them in his socks and underwear. FOX picked up the claim at some point, also saying Berger admitted stuffing his socks.

It's chronicled with links in another thread.

[Jackson4Gore]

15. Who said anything about the socks

It doesn't matter how he took them if he did. It also doesn't matter if he originally wrote the documents.

[shockingelk]

39. I am saying Rush Limbaugh made it up

The earliest result on news.google.com mentioning "socks" and "berger" is a transcript of Limbaugh's tuesday show.

[lanparty]

149. Ummm ....

These are secured records. If anyone had saw Berger stuffing his socks with Top Secret documents, they would have been searched and detained.

[KittyWampus]

4. You Don't Even Know What Really Happened, Why Are You "Disappointed"?

what games are being played with secrecy?

why does this make ANYONE look bad ESPECIALLY Albright & Gore?

Why drag their names is?

I've read several news articles with sketchy details.

Apparently, Berger took some hand written notes home and inadvertently took some COPIES of documents.

The investigators have known about this since October. That's Almost a full YEAR!

This would put our people on the level of Nixon and Bush?

What exactly is on your agenda?

[Jackson4Gore]

8. What is my agenda?

Not to stoop to their level. If he did it, he should pay. I am tired of our politicians condeming the right wing idiots, then doing something on the same level.

Have you ever heard of Watergate? The coverup? The lies?

Have you ever heard of the CIA leak? The Iraq War?

That all involves secrecy and trying to cover something up. I don't want genuinly good people having their name tarnished by this like Gore or Albright or anyone else who is honest and did their job.

I did not say that I thought he was guilty. I simply said if he did do what is charged, I will be very disappointed.

How can you say that you wouldn't be?

[kikiek]

20. Knowing the distortions of the repubs I think it would be wise to take

a wait and see approach. From information filtering through the hype it sounds innocuous. I would prefer we focus on the real natl security threat like Bush being president. This is nothing in comparison to Watergate, Plame, Halliburton etc etc except it makes a good hyped story. Don't feed their hype. Even calling and saying that at this point is what they want to hear and hope to accomplish. What does this have to do with Kerry anyways!

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HootieMcBoob]

77. How can you possibly compare this to Watergate?

No offense, but that is just nutty. Watergate was an attempt by the RNC to subvert democracy. They burglarized Democratic National Headquarters. The current Republican Senate has done the same thing except in a 21st century way by hacking the Senate computers so that they could steal documents from Democrats in the Senate! Why hasn't that been all over the news? Any clues? Because the Republicans did it and they get away with any kind of criminal activity they want without a peep from the librul media. Why is Sandy Berger's taking away of his own notes and some documents such huge news? Because Sandy Berger is a Democrat who served a Democratic President and he's an adviser to a Democratic Presidential nominee! It's really as simple as that. Look, if Berger committed a crime then he'll pay for it. But where the fuck is the cover up that you keep talking about? They have been investigating this thing for fucking months already!!! Doesn't that send up a freaking flare? And what in the name of God does this have to do with Gore or Albright? What are you talking about? And why in the name of god are you calling up CSPAN just to spread right wing bullshit?

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HootieMcBoob]

100. that's not what happened at all

But if that's what Rush and Savage and the rest of the goon squad are telling you just keep lapping it up, eventually you'll vomit and pass out from the poison they're feeding you and when you wake up you'll be living in a fascist corporate theocracy and you'll feel much much better. :puke:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

112. Oh, my. Another supporter of "the media tells no lies"....

Got any links to support your charges?

How about just ONE link?

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wishlist]

49. Why didn't the Justice Dept pursue it during 911 commission investigation

and get it cleared up to make sure the commission's work would not be jeapardized instead of dropping the matter and then allowing a leak to come out after the 911 commission has already completed its work?

Probably because as Berger's lawyer states, the missing document (a report written by Richard Clarke) was just a copy and the original is still at the Archives and has been reviewed by many other people including the 911 commission.

If the Justice Dept had pursued the matter earlier, Berger and the 911 commission would have had plenty of time to clear the air and publicly debunk any suggestion that Berger compromised national security in his handling of the papers.

Instead of taking action months ago to either press charges or close out the inquiry, Ashcroft's Justice Dept instead kept it hanging as a card up their sleeve to be used for political purposes.

[mikehiggins]

5. Huh? This is a Bushoid attempt to distract from 9/11 report

To me that is a given. As to Berger, it just appears to me to be a case of a long-time D.C. insider who figured those pesky rules didn't really apply to him.

Every document in an archive such as that involved is logged and tagged. There is absolutely no question in that regard as to what documents are missing (if any are) and what they refer to. If items relating to the 9/11 investigation were somehow denied to the commission that would be a shame, but since the items in question appear to be related to the closing days of the Clinton administration it is hard to see how relevent they really might be.

9/11 took place after a period in which the top guy in the US government spent more time in Crawford than Washington. When the queen bee shows no interest in what the worker bees are doing, you don't get a hell of a lot of honey from the hive. Government types take their directions from the top down; if Bush didn't give a shit about national security, why expect others to rock the boat?

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wolfgirl]

6. Broke the law?

From what I'm hearing, Berger was reviewing copies of documents & taking some notes. He took his notes w/him without first alerting the archives staff (a courtesy, not a requirement). He also apparently inadvertently took a couple of pages from the copies of a draft of the final report that was going to be submitted re: terrorism.

He has been working with the FBI since Oct '03 regarding all this, so why does it become a breaking story now. The RW are going crazy using mis-representations and innuendo.

Remember it's all Clinton's fault.

[Redhead488]

23. He willfully violated security procedures

He should have his access to classified materials terminated. Period. That should be the end of it.

[itcfish1]

31. Duh

Didnt Berger actually write some of these documents? This is just a distraction from the real issues. The War and Halliburton

[Redhead488]

35. Doesn't matter

He broke the freaking rules. He should have known better. That said, this is NOT a big freaking deal.

[Jackson4Gore]

36. Albeit, but it still does not make what he done right.

I can't believe that some of you are just dismissing this as politics and saying there is nothing to worry about. Right now he is pressumed innocent, but he could be guilty. That is all I am pointing out.

[Tight_rope]

153. Give me a break...it's just another distraction from 9/11 report due 7/22!

[shockingelk]

7. Berger himself leaked the news

And Hastert is onto something:

'What could those documents have said that drove Mr. Berger to remove them without authorization from a secure reading room for classified documents," House Speaker Dennis Hastert said in a statement

The documents Berger "lost" are incriminating of the Bush administration, and don't relate to 9/11 Commission's work. That would explain how the 9/11 commission says no documents are missing and the archivists say there is. I also find it curious that Berger says he lost "a few" documents, yet the archive says they're only missing one.

Basically Berger came up with a genius ploy to create a media frenzy that will lead to the declassification of Bush admin documents.

If this wild hypothesis is correct, he'd be a "hero in error".

However, if he was just a dork and mishandled classified documents in a way that violated laws he knows too well, and after all the experience he has, he should get in big trouble. Bad Sandy.

[kikiek]

14. The missing documents have been described as copies.

I have heard several times nothing is missing that the commission hasn't seen or that there isn't originals of.

[Justice]

16. Exactly, Gergen Made This Point Last Night Calling it "Critical"

see my post below.

[shockingelk]

34. Why do you assume they pertained to the Commission's work?

In his statement, Berger said he lost "a few" documents. Yet the archivists say only one is missing:

But there are reports archive staff report one document still missing,
Archives officials have also told investigators that one document is still missing -- an analysis of the effectiveness of counterterrorism efforts against threats tied to the turn of the Millennium. (CNN)

I am assuming that Bush admin documents - possibly pertaining to Iraq and thus not necessarily under the purview of the 9/11 Commission - are also in this library. And we know what librarians think of the Bush admin ...

I'm waiting to see - but scandals usually do have a few twists to them.

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

9. Another attack by the Neocons

Nothing more. You have to look at the content of the documents to determine why they were classified and what risk their loss poses to the USA to assess the potential damage or even the concern for that matter. This is just another rightwing red herring. The information lost by the Los Alamos nuclear lab is probably a lot more worrisome than this...

[Justice]

11. David Gergen On NewsNight Last Night Had Some Interesting Points

BROWN: We're joined now from Cape Cod, and we suspect his summer vacation, by David Gergen who is a colleague of Mr. Berger's and, of course, has been a distinguished adviser to four presidents, President Nixon, Ford, Reagan and President Clinton. Mr. Gergen currently teaches at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government and we are always pleased to see him.

Well, well, well, David, what do you think we have here?

DAVID GERGEN, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: Well, Aaron, I must tell you to underscore it in the beginning, I am a friend of Sandy Berger's and I have utmost faith in his integrity and believe he has served this country enormously well. He's one of the heroes in the war on terrorism in my book. Let me just say I think this has been blown way out of proportion and it is much more innocent than it looks.

Let's get a couple of things very clear. In late 1999, as the millennium celebration approached, the United States had a lot of warnings that terrorists were about to strike.

Sandy Berger went into a bunker for three or four nights, 24 hours a day practically, working with a team and they thwarted that terrorism, those attempted terrorist attacks. One of them was going to be to take out the Los Angeles Airport and there were other strikes intended. They stopped those attacks.

After it was over, he went back to Richard Clarke, yes that Richard Clarke, who was working on his staff and said, "Richard, write up a report on what we've done and let's have a self analysis on what we've done." That's the underlying document that's in question, this millennium report that's based on what he did to stop a terrorism attack.

Now, when the 9/11 Commission came along and said, "Mr. Berger, we want you to come up here and be well versed in the documents surrounding your time as national security adviser regarding terrorism, go into, you know, review all the documents." He went into the National Archives and poured over these documents and in some cases lots and lots of pages.

Now, he did make two mistakes and he admits this and he was sloppy about it. He took notes on what he was reading so he'd be prepared for his testimony and he stuck the notes in his pocket and walked away. That is a technical violation of archival rules.

The second thing he did was he did, as he had all these papers on the desk, he did mix in copies of the original document and got them into his briefcase and, I'm sloppy too so I can appreciate this, he lost a couple of them.

BROWN: David.

GERGEN: So, but let me finish this one point, Aaron, which is critical.

BROWN: OK.

GERGEN: What he lost and what is missing now are copies of original documents and the originals are still there and they've been made available to the 9/11 Commission. There had been no break in the paper trail. There is no harm to national security here. Nothing has occurred which has impaired or threatened national security and there's no advantage to anybody because the documents are in front of the 9/11 Commission, the originals.

BROWN: Then, David, by implication you are suggesting that the puffery that we heard on Capitol Hill today was simply politically motivated stuff?

GERGEN: Well, I have to tell you, Aaron, if I were working on Capitol Hill for one of the Republicans, and I've worked for Republicans in the past, as you well know, I'm sure I would have wanted to join in the fray and pile on and make a whoop-de-doo about this because the 9/11 Commission is coming out and the campaign is coming out.

I do believe, I've talked to his lawyer in this case and Lanny Breuer, Sandy Berger's lawyer, talked to the Justice Department months ago and said, "Gentlemen, let's respect each other here. I will respect your commission. I want you to respect us and be no leaks, especially" he said "just before the 9/11 Commission report."

Now, 48 hours or so before the 9/11 Commission report, boom, you know, something which has been, you know, that Berger hasn't talked to the Justice Department since April suddenly this becomes an issue, is that not suspicious? I would submit it is.

I do think, of course, we should have a full and frank understanding of what happened. We need all the facts on the table but at the end of the day it does seem to me there's a lot less here than meets the eye and this is a man of enormous integrity who ought to be thanked for what he did in stopping the attacks over the millennium.

BROWN: David, good to see you. Thank you much.

GERGEN: Thank you, Aaron.

BROWN: David Gergen from Cape Cod tonight.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/20/asb.00.html

[Media_Lies_Daily]

18. Thank you for your honesty, Mr. Gergen.

[shockingelk]

21. Any chance the commission's report could be delayed?

Obviously, few members of the commission would look kindly at the fruit of their labor being obscured by something only tangentially related.

[kikiek]

27. I have read that the report isn't affected by this at all. No information

that wasn't seen or reviewed. It is meant to get people worked up.

[shockingelk]

43. Obviously it will help Bush keep his base

People have a reason (not valid) to doubt the 9/11 Commissions finding (as reported in the WP today) that Bush missed six opportunities to unravel the 9/11 plot.

[onecitizen]

32. Thanx for posting that transcript........

I missed the show last night. Bravo David Gergen!

[October]

33. Kick -- so others will read

[kikiek]

12. I thnk you're falling for the hype. It's been under investigation for a yr

He was only an informal advisor to Kerry. They are using this to divert attention away from the 9/11 report and the Dem Natl Conv. There are any repubs under investigation they're hoping to sling some of the slime on someone else. The most laughable is the outrage expressed by DeLay. He should be in jail. The Plame investigation. The Halliburton investigations. Cheney and the energy task force battle. There and have been so many no one can keep track, which is what they hope for. Berger is and has been cooperating unlike any repub with any of theirs.

[Jackson4Gore]

17. No one is saying that the right wing is innocent or good

However, I don't think it is good for some of our people to be involved in this. He already admits he was wrong for taking them. Whether it breaks any laws is to be seen.

Please tell me you do not condone these actions if they are true.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

22. Are you paying ANY attention to what's being posted in this thread???....

Why do you insist on harping on a point that has been proven to be a NON-POINT??? What the heck is it that you seem COMPLETELY incapable of understanding??

BERGER DID NOTHING WRONG! IF HE HAD, THE JACKBOOTED NEOCONS WOULD HAVE HAD HIM HAULED INTO A VERY MESSY AND VERY PUBLIC LEGAL NIGHTMARE NINE MONTHS AGO WHEN THEY FIRST BECAME AWARE OF THE SITUATION! CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT???

Please tell me that you don't condone making a mountain out of a non-existent mole-hill.

[Redhead488]

26. He did do wrong

he took classified documents out of a SCIF. He screwed the pooch on that. The fact that he secreted the documents on his person and not in his briefcase tends to show this was willful and not a "mistake." (your briefcase can be searched but not your "person" when you leave a Specialized Compartmented Information Facility). He should lose his access to classified materials and that is all.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

37. Evidently you've swallowed the official story? You know,....

...the one where Berger is supposed to have hidden documents in every single item of clothing he was wearing that day, including his socks and underwear? Please spare me.

I'm surprised that the press has not yet reported that documents were found after security did a full-body cavity search...I'm sure people would have fallen for that story, too.

And please don't lecture me on security...I ran a classified vault as a collateral duty while I was an officer in the military.

[Redhead488]

42. I'm not lecturing you

Yes, I do believe he put them on his person. I think he probably wanted more time to review certain documents and he removed them as a matter of convenience; nothing nefarious or illegal intended.

Fact of the matter is, he removed Codeword documents from a SCIF. That's wrong and he needs to lose his clearance.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

54. You keep quoting "facts"....are you getting those from the captive...

...mainstream press, or are you part of the team of investigators?

The "fact is", you know nothing about the actual facts in this case other than what you've read or heard from the media.

[Redhead488]

57. Berger admitted to removing classified documents - FACT

Berger knows that is wrong - FACT
Berger violated proper security procedures by removing classified documents from a secure area - FACT

That's taken from his 15 second statement I saw on the news. True, I got the rest of my info from the Washington Post; a paper I trust.

Quit trying to excuse Berger. He fucked up. He needs to lose his clearance.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

68. Whatever you say. And you trust the Washington Post? Maybe you...

...should read this website about "Operation Mockingbird":

<http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_louise_01_03_03_mockingbird.html>

Excerpt:

"Starting in the early days of the Cold War (late 40's), the CIA began a secret project called Operation Mockingbird, with the intent of buying influence behind the scenes at major media outlets and putting reporters on the CIA payroll, which has proven to be a stunning ongoing success. The CIA effort to recruit American news organizations and journalists to become spies and disseminators of propaganda, was headed up by Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, and Philip Graham (publisher of The Washington Post). Wisner had taken Graham under his wing to direct the program code-named Operation Mockingbird and both have presumably committed suicide.

Media assets will eventually include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated Press, United Press International (UPI), Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service, etc. and 400 journalists, who have secretly carried out assignments according to documents on file at CIA headquarters, from intelligence-gathering to serving as go-betweens. The CIA had infiltrated the nation's businesses, media, and universities with tens of thousands of on-call operatives by the 1950's. CIA Director Dulles had staffed the CIA almost exclusively with Ivy League graduates, especially from Yale with figures like George Herbert Walker Bush from the 'Skull and Crossbones' Society.

Many Americans still insist or persist in believing that we have a free press, while getting most of their news from state-controlled television, under the misconception that reporters are meant to serve the public. Reporters are paid employees and serve the media owners, who usually cower when challenged by advertisers or major government figures. Robert Parry reported the first breaking stories about Iran-Contra for Associated Press that were largely ignored by the press and congress, then moving to Newsweek he witnessed a retraction of a true story for political reasons. In 'Fooling America: A Talk by Robert Parry' he said, 'The people who succeeded and did well were those who didn't stand up, who didn't write the big stories, who looked the other way when history was happening in front of them, and went along either consciously or just by cowardice with the deception of the American people.'"

[Redhead488]

71. Maybe you should just take your meds

Berger ADMITTED he did something WRONG on TV last night!! I see, maybe he read the papers and just THOUGHT he did something wrong.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

74. How long ago did this happen? Nine months or so?....

And with all of the new Patriot Act rules, shouldn't he have been "detained" indefinitely?

Now, now...tsk, tsk. Lashing out angrily doesn't help the tone of the discussion, does it? Now who needs their meds?

[Redhead488]

76. You need to go back and read my posts

Why should he be detained? I maintain he broke no law; he violated security procedures. I've stated that this is not a big deal and that all that should happen is that Berger should lose his access to classified information.

I'm not lashing out. I'm trying to make you comprehend simple facts, but your paranoia prevents you from doing so.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

82. I have read your posts....and I'm not impressed with your news sources....

...and I'm definitely not impressed with your condescending attitude.

Here are some simple facts for you...the captive mainstream media reports very little useful news except what they believe will either:

1. bolster the position of the NeoCon Junta, or...

2. tear down the position of any individual or group opposed to the Junta.

"Paranoia" has nothing to do with being willing to open your eyes and actually see what's going on around you. In the case of some individuals that would most likely involve a two-stage process:

1. remove their head from wherever it is currently residing;

2. open eyes.

[Redhead488]

84. You're not swayed by Berger's statement, huh?

Was he brainwashed? Did they use a double? Please, tell me what diabolic scheme the press used to get Berger to make his statement?

"Paranoia will destroy ya"

[Media_Lies_Daily]

87. I'm not swayed by YOUR statements. Was that somehow unclear?

[Redhead488]

89. So my reporting of

Beger said in his statement is a lie? He didn't say it?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

98. I haven't personally seen it, so I have no way to verify your personal...

...veracity.

Based on your responses to me in this thread it is very unlikely that I would ever read anything from you and accept it as fact based on the sources you insist on using.

That's your problem, not mine.

[Redhead488]

101. No, it's your problem

As you are pretending the event did not happen. All you have to do is look it up.

I insist on using Sandy Berger as a source. Guess that's not good enough for you.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

104. Your posting of an alleged statement doesn't make it so, does it?

[Redhead488]

106. It's not alleged,

He made it.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

114. Because you tell me so?

[Redhead488]

117. No, because it HAPPENED

There is plenty of other evidence, besides my word, that Berger made a public statement last night. The fact that you are even arguing this speaks volumes.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

122. No, actually, I'm responding to you in this manner ...

...because you pissed me off for a number of reasons that I've noted in my previous posts.

My only purpose now is to see how many insulting comments you can make in a single thread. Keep up the good work...you're doing just fine.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

129. Back in that corner again, eh? And if you can't be insulting....

...resort to distortions of the truth.

Not believing the captive mainstream media is far from being "paranoid" these days. Are you really attempting to state that the captive mainstream press is truthful in all matters? Is that not what you're really stating?

[redqueen]

110. No, you're also saying you believe a telling right wing talking point

Very Important Distinction, IMO

[Redhead488]

124. It's been reported by the Washington Post

and other main-stream media. Why does that make it a right-wing tlaking point?

[redqueen]

127. I shouldn't have to spell it out for you

You seem like a bright person.

Apparently the Justice department was not concerned in the least with the notes that he had in his pockets.

Apparently this kind of transgression has happened before and been met with nary a peep.

Now, not only is the investigation being ignored in favor of the rabble-rousing 'closeted on his person' crap, but we have members spewing it here.

It matters not that the Post picks crap up from Rush. It matters that people bring it here, and promote it as 'news.

[Redhead488]

141. Apparently?

Nothing like "facts."

This has happened before and people are routinely reprimanded/punished for it. Don't you think Berger should be as well?

[redqueen]

150. Really? People are routinely reprimanded/punished?

Senior level people? Like James Woosley?

From another post in this thread: "James Woosely said last night that he had committed a security violation once when he inadvertently took classified docs from a reading room. Someone from The National Archives stated on NPR yesterday that inadvertently taking docs was "not unheard of"."

Since you're so knowledgeable about these things, please do tell ... what other instances have there been of this occurring, so that I can determine whether or not your statement is in fact true.

[Redhead488]

154. Senior level people

should get special treatment? Is that what you are saying? That only the underlings should be reprimanded for security violations? I tend to think the more senior you are, the more you should be punished for these types of actions.

As the Commander of an RC-135 unit, I occasionally had to punish people for committing security violations. For what Berger did, I would have suspended their access and given them an Article 15 (fined them).

Removing codeword documents from a SCIF is never a good thing. In this case, it shows a carelessness that is incompatible with possessing a SCI clearance. Both violations, by themselves, might warrant only a written reprimand, but, taking the two together, stronger action is required. His clearance should be suspended for six months as a minimum.

[redqueen]

157. Did I say that? No. Then clearly that's not what I'm saying.

I'm asking you if there is precedent for senior level people being treated like Berger is being treated by the right wing media.

You don't seem to be able to provide any precendent, so thanks anyway.

And btw, your personal situation & details of what you do really aren't germane to this discussion, I don't think.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

132. Tell me what you think of Susan Schmidt's reporting since 1993....

...you do know the writings of Susan Schmidt, don't you?

Or how about Bob Woodward on breaking Watergate as a reporter with about 1.5 years experience as a journalist. Or his infamous alleged interview of William Casy about Iran-Contra matters in his well-guarded hospital room the day before he died undergoing surgery for a brain tumor? And now we have the infamous but false Tenet "slam dunk" quote in one of Woodward's recent books where the only possible sources for that quote were NeoCons with a vested interest in blaming the CIA.

What do you know about "Operation Mockingbird", an ongoing operation by the CIA to control the information distributed by our mainstream media?

What do you know about any the the very conservative owners of the mainstream media?

You "trust the Washington Post"?? Interesting, but very sad.

[Redhead488]

143. I'm sorry, I see you think that EVERYTHING

they report is a lie. I don't feel that way.

[redqueen]

107. Before, you said you BELIEVED the FREEPER talking point

that he hid them on his person.

Nice that you edited that particular little RIGHT WING FREEPER talking point this time... at least you have THAT going for you.

[Redhead488]

115. I do believe

he secreted his notes on his person. Otherwise, he would have presented them for security review, as required, before departing the SCIF.

[redqueen]

128. And what do you believe

about Woolsey's claim that this isn't exactly uncommon?

Are you as rabid to have his security clearance or whatever suspended as well?

If not, why?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

133. David Gergen also forcefully defended Berger last night on Aaron Brown.

[redqueen]

136. Yes I know... but it seems some have chosen not to notice

Preferring instead to keep working the right-wing angle here?

Interesting, isn't it?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

137. We'll see more of that as the election gets closer.

[Redhead488]

146. What right wing angle??

He did something WRONG! Period. No matter why or how; he screwed up. There are repercussions for what he did. Minor ones, but repercussions none the less. He deserves the same punishment any other FORMER Govt employee who still has access to classified info would get: suspension/revocation of his security clearance. "I made a mistake" doesn't hack it. Them's the breaks for those who have access to Codeword material.

[redqueen]

151. Yes I've read your rant in dozens of other posts.

No need to repeat yourself, really.

And yes, RIGHT WING ANGLE.

He had notes in his pockets. From another person's account the disclosure of those notes is not required - only a courtesy.

Based on your highly suspicious repeating of the right wing talking point exaggerating how he 'hid documents on his person' rather than had notes in his pockets... I'm not about to start taking your word for anything, no offense.

[Redhead488]

155. The disclosure of notes IS required

One is not permitted to remove one's notes (derived from classified) documents) from a SCIF without having a security review done on them. Sure, it happens, but that doesn't make it right.

[redqueen]

159. Once again the brilliant technique

of the blatant and obvious refusal to deal with the fact that you're using a RIGHT WING angle... not failing to note that.

But regarding the technical violation of archival rules wrt taking notes, Gergen backs that up so I'm willing to take HIS word for it.

However, the failure of anyone to make a brouhaha over anyone else doing it is very telling, don't you think?

Or maybe you don't... gee, I wonder why that might be...

[Redhead488]

162. You completely miss the point

Berger committed a security violation. Yes or no?
Berger's security violation is minor. Yes or no?
Berger still needs to be punished for violating security procedures. Yes or no?

I think the answer to all three questions is yes. What say you?

That is NOT a right wing angle. The right wingers are trying to make a big deal out of it by alleging criminal activity. I'm saying this is NOT a crime, merely a breach of proper security procedures.

[redqueen]

164. No, I don't

"Berger committed a security violation. Yes or no?

Yes, as did Woolsey, whose violation was apparently not important. Archival staff also apparently assert that this is not unheard of. Why, if this kind of thing is 'not unheard of', are charges and reprimands and what not UNHEARD OF?


Berger's security violation is minor. Yes or no?

Yes. Which is why I have to wonder about the motives of those calling into talk shows and ranting about how he should be punished, regardless of whether others of his ilk have been.


Berger still needs to be punished for violating security procedures. Yes or no?

NO! Not unless someone can show me where in another similar situation, the other offender was punished. And then only with the same punishment that person received.


And you're wrong. This whole STORY is a right wing angle. The simple fact that this was leaked TWO DAYS before the release of the 9/11 Report says it all.

"GERGEN: Well, I have to tell you, Aaron, if I were working on Capitol Hill for one of the Republicans, and I've worked for Republicans in the past, as you well know, I'm sure I would have wanted to join in the fray and pile on and make a whoop-de-doo about this because the 9/11 Commission is coming out and the campaign is coming out.

I do believe, I've talked to his lawyer in this case and Lanny Breuer, Sandy Berger's lawyer, talked to the Justice Department months ago and said, "Gentlemen, let's respect each other here. I will respect your commission. I want you to respect us and be no leaks, especially" he said "just before the 9/11 Commission report."

Now, 48 hours or so before the 9/11 Commission report, boom, you know, something which has been, you know, that Berger hasn't talked to the Justice Department since April suddenly this becomes an issue, is that not suspicious? I would submit it is.

I do think, of course, we should have a full and frank understanding of what happened. We need all the facts on the table but at the end of the day it does seem to me there's a lot less here than meets the eye and this is a man of enormous integrity who ought to be thanked for what he did in stopping the attacks over the millennium."


By all means, keep ignoring the larger issue, and keep harping on the violation, which you yourself admit was minor.

It helps to keep the battle lines clear, so to speak.

[Redhead488]

166. Every single day

people are punished for committing security violations. Either a written reprimand or something more serious. What did Woolsey do? Was he caught doing it? Was he punished? You have no idea, do you? So leave Woolsey out of this.

Berger, yes Berger, fucked up. He admitted it. Now, he'll be dealt with for committing a security violation, not a crime; a security violation. If we punish enlisted men and women for doing what he did, we need to punish him.

[Redhead488]

140. Woolsey is factual

it isn't uncommon. It is still wrong, however. I'm not sure what Woolsey was accused of. If he removed classified documents from an approved area, in violation of the security regs, then yes, his access should have been suspended.

[redqueen]

152. Well that's the whole thing, isn't it?

Woolsey wasn't accused of anything -- he VOLUNTEERED this information, which was apparently no big deal when HE did it, NOR does it seem to be a big deal to anyone now that the information is out!

Suspicion grows, does it not?

[Redhead488]

156. I'm not familiar with the Woolsey issue

And I've stated consistently; this is NOT a big deal. It is a security violation, not a crime. He should be punished just like anyone else who committed a security violation. Are you disagreeing with that? Are you saying that he should just be told "bad boy?"

[redqueen]

160. If he should be treated (not punished duh) like anyone else

then you wouldn't even know about it, just as you don't know anything about Woolsey's violation.

:)

[Redhead488]

163. Was Woolsey

caught committing a security violation, as was Berger? Or did he just say "even I committed security violations?"

If he got away with it, too bad. This sin't about Woolsey, it's about Berger. Berger was caught doing somthing that violated security; therefore he deserves "punishment" in accordance with established security rules and regulations. Why do you think he deserves a free pass?

[redqueen]

165. Berger was caught?

How? How is it that Berger was seen, yet Woolsey was not?

Is Woolsey invisible? ;)

The larger issue: how is it that archival staff admit that this is not unheard of, yet anyone else being strung up and made into the latest Kobe Bryant IS unheard of?

You're far too uncritical, IMHO.

[Redhead488]

167. I don't KNOW about Woolsey and neither do you

In either case what Woolsey did or did not do is irrelevant. Berger got "caught" when the people in the archived noticed some documents missing and asked him about them. He admitted he took them. Bingo! Security Violation! When you commit a security violation you expect to be punished for it; you are told that will happen as soon as you are given access.

[yodermon]

134. You are arguing on the RW's terms, you know.

The big picture here is that Berger committed a minor violation (which is not too uncommon, as it turns out)-- OVER A YEAR AGO. And we are just hearing about it NOW? Come on. It is so transparently political and PATHETIC, and the RW's spin on it is so EGREGIOUS that I believe that Berger's minor "sin" is outweighed by these factors.

But when you keep posting over and over (FROM THE LEFT, mind you) things like Quit trying to excuse Berger. He fucked up. He needs to lose his clearance. you are actually PLAYING UP the right wing's spin, while at the same time sitting there all smug in your indignation.

You are symptomatic of how the left has let the right define the terms of the issues and tilt the playing field. You lapped it right up. Don't you see how this plays right into their spin of how Clinton-era policies are incompetent, clinton "allowed" 9/11, blah blah blah? Now, they get to dogpile on Berger, saying "if he's that incompetent, no wonder they allowed 9/11 to happen"

Here. This is from the current article on yahoo news about the whole affair: (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=4&u=/nm/20040721/pl_nm/security_berger_dc )
The probe of Berger, who served under former President Bill Clinton, escalated into an election-year firefight as Republicans accused Berger of stealing the documents for use by Kerry's campaign and Democrats questioned the probe's timing.

and


"Right after the documents were taken, John Kerry held a photo op and attacked the president on port security," said Rick Santorum, a Republican senator from Pennsylvania. "The documents that were taken may have been utilized for that press conference."


W T F????!! :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :mad: :mad: :mad:

THAT RW SPIN is what is at issue here. If we really want to fight them, we should be helping DEFEND Berger's honor, and call out these Repug dirty tricks on the carpet and show no mercy.

But no. you fall right into the trap and say "he fucked up. stop trying to excuse him. he screwed the pooch. He'd better distance himself from Kerry."


Jeesuz! Is the the DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND or an ALAN-COLMES WANNABE LOVE FEST???

IMHO, John Kerry should have kept him on his team, and defended his honor & and patriotism and *gasp, shock* : FORGIVEN HIM!, in defiance of the RW spin machine. Wishful thinking, I know.

Here, for your edification, read the transcript of Berger's lawyer, Lanny Breuer, on Wolf Blitzer last night. Note how Wolfie keeps reframing the issue to portray Berger in the worst possible light;
(from http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/20/wbr.01.html)
(eg):

BLITZER: The suspicion is and it's simply a suspicion that he deliberately threw away that document or shredded it or destroyed it because he feared if it was in his possession he would be in violation of some sort of law.


WTF?? *WHOSE* suspsiction? Rush Limbaugh's? It certainly wasn't the FBI's suspicion. Why does this even warrant a question? The whole interview is like that, Breuer's responses successfully negate wolf's spin, I think.

Here's some more:

BLITZER: Brian Todd, thanks very much for that report. Samuel Berger is represented by another White House veteran. Lanny Breuer was a special counsel to President Clinton in the White House, a one- time federal prosecutor. He is now a prominent defense attorney specializing in white-collar cases. Lanny Breuer joining us now live.

Lanny, thanks very much for joining us. This goes back to the fall when these allegations were made, right?

LANNY BREUER, BERGER'S ATTORNEY: That's exactly right, Wolf. This matter is now over a year old. Sandy Berger reviewed documents in the Archives in July and September and October of 2003. And from October 2003, the first time that Sandy was notified that this one document was missing, we've been 100 percent open, returned the two documents that were in Sandy's possession immediately and have tried to have a very open and informed discussion with the Department of Justice.

BLITZER: But Sandy Berger knew the rules when he went there. He's not just anyone. He's not an academic. He's a former national security adviser. A, he knew you don't take documents out of the National Archives, and, B, he knew if you took notes you have to get clearance to get permission to remove those notes from those rooms.

BREUER: Well, see -- let's first talk, Wolf, about the notes. The notes have just never been an issue in this case. The Department of Justice has told me those notes have not been an issue in this case. He took notes and the reason he took notes was Sandy had read and reviewed thousands upon thousands of documents. I'm not sure there's another American of Sandy's stature who spent more time selflessly reviewing documents so that he could answer all of the questions of the 9/11 commission.

BLITZER: Let's talk about those notes for a second. Did he take notes -- did he take those notes from the room without authorization?

BREUER: He took notes and he did take them out. It's a violation of the Archives procedure. He took those notes. From the very beginning, he openly took the notes. He was allowed to take notes. And then he took the notes with him. He put them in his coat pocket and in his pants pocket...

BLITZER: He knew this was not authorized.

BREUER: Well, he knew it was a violation of Archives procedure. It's not against the law. No one has suggested to him it's against the law. The Department of Justice has not been concerned with it. And indeed, Wolf, in October, when the Archives contacted him, Sandy Berger returned those notes even though he wasn't asked for those notes.

BLITZER: I know Sandy Berger. You know Sandy Berger. Why would he violate Archives procedure?

BREUER: Because there's something more important than Archives procedure and that's the hard work of the 9/11 commission. Sandy Berger knew that he was going to be asked questions about what happened in the early '90s and mid '90s and that the 9/11 commission and the families of those victims had a right to know what happened.

BLITZER: Why didn't he ask for authorization, for permission? They would have given him permission to take that out of there.

BREUER: Wolf, we've admitted and Sandy has acknowledged from the beginning it was a mistake of judgment. There is no surprise here. We've acknowledged that mistake in judgment in October. And everyone...

BLITZER: Did he panic? Is that it?

BREUER: It wasn't panic at all. It wasn't considered to him that big a deal to take the notes. Clearly, the Department of Justice, in every discussion they've had with me, have made it clear that that was not a focus of this matter.

(end excerpt)

"Did he panic" Good grief.

end rant.

[Justice]

40. He did not take out documents on his person

Please, read what has been stated. Berger mistakenly took COPIES of documents in his leather portfolio.

[Redhead488]

47. The fact they were copies is irrelevant,

they were CLASSIFIED and that is all that matters. He was not allowed to take them out. He violated the rules. He DID secret handwritten notes on his body--he put them in his pockets. That is also a breech of the rules. As I stated before, this is MINOR. He just needs to lose his security clearance.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

56. Once again, are you part of the team of investigators? Do you...

...know first-hand what you're claiming as "fact"?

The real fact here is that you personally know nothing of the actual situation other than what you've read or heard via the captive mainstream media.

[Redhead488]

60. So I have to see something first hand

to claim it to be true?

Bereger ADMITTED he took classified documents out of a secure area. PAY attention!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

69. Did he? I only have your word for that, and I don't know you from Adam.

[Redhead488]

73. Watch the NEWS

He made a freaking statement on the affair. Read the papers; they reported on his STATEMENT. You know, too many conspiracy theories and paranoia will destroy ya!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

75. I don't watch the mainstream news anymore...that's why I come to DU....

...but the fact that you get YOUR news from the captive televised and print media speaks volumes.

Are you telling me that you ACTUALLY believe what they're telling you? Interesting. But very sad.

[Redhead488]

78. Yes, when the news shows Berger

standing in front of a microphone admitting to removing classified documents, I tend to believe that Berger was telling the truth.

I suppose you believe they got a Berger double up there to give the statement. Either that or they brainwashed him into believing he did it.

[sadiesworld]

81. A couple of points:

Berger KNOWINGLY took his own handwritten notes out of the archives in his jacket and pants pockets.

Berger INADVERTENTLY took document copies out of the archives in his portfolio.

[Redhead488]

83. Doesn't matter

He was not ALLOWED to do either (We can remove his notes AFTER review). One is supposed to ENSURE they do not accidentally remove classified documents from a SCIF. One is also supposed to provide one's handwritten notes to security personnel before departing the SCIF so they can ensure the notes are not classified. Berger violated security rules. He did not commit a crime.

[sadiesworld]

91. According to Berger's attorney the Justice Dept. has never been

interested in the handwritten notes. That leaves the document copies which Berger inadvertently took from the archives. Government officials, researchers, and archive officials are coming forward to say this happens on occasion. Apparently, you have some insider knowledge. Is it your position that Berger's security clearance should be revoked for mistakenly removing the document copies? James Woosley has stated that he had a similar violation and I didn't get the impression that he lost his clearance.

[Redhead488]

94. Yes, if you violate

security requirements and take classified info from a secure vault, inadvertently or not, your clearance should be at least suspended. His notes SHOULD have been reviewed before he left the secure area, THAT is proper procedure. There is NO way he should have removed codeword documents from a SCIF. It shows wanton disregard for the proper protection of classified information. I pulled security clearances many times for the exact same offense.

[sadiesworld]

96. From a former NSA?

[Redhead488]

99. ESC, AFIC, AIA

Since you're tossing around acronyms. With three tours at Mother DIRNSA.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Redhead488]

105. I'm not

being a jerk.

We don't know yet if it was an error. Seems like it was, but he is supposed to KNOW better! You DON'T take handwritten notes from a SCIF without surrendering them for a security review. Maybe there was nothing classified on them, maybe there was. Either way, they are supposed to be surrendered for review; not placed in your pockets before you leave. That's violation 1.

Violations 2 was taking out the copies of the classified documents. That's just plain wrong, "accident" or not.

Berger should have his access suspended. That is what they would do to me in my current job. He deserves the same treatment.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Redhead488]

119. Why?

Pointing out you can't tell fact from fiction?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

126. No, the only thing you've attempted to "point out" is the interesting...

...concept that I must trust exactly what you post on DU no matter how insulting you get, and despite the fact that you have no personal credibility with me on this board.

Additionally, you seem to be telling me that the captive mainstream media always reports the truth. Do you really believe that? And if so, why?

[Redhead488]

139. I don't believe that everything

the mainstream media reports is the truth. I believe that almost ALL stories are slanted one way or the other.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

86. Don't confuse him with the REAL facts...he's on a roll.

[Redhead488]

88. Gee whiz

You really are dense, aren't you? It doesn't matter why he removed classified documents from the SCIF, or how he removed them. All that matters is that he did. Once he admitted to that, he admitted to violating security regulations. It's a violation of security, not a crime. Are you incapable of understanding that??

[Media_Lies_Daily]

103. Ah, yes. Now I see that you're resorting to the old time-honored....

...practice that when backed into a corner, one resorts to name-calling, and/or any other insulting comments.

In our conversation so far, I've learned that you are:

1. overbearing
2. condescending
3. insulting
4. you believe what the captive mainstream media is telling you, apparently without any question or reservation.

Based on the above, why should I believe anything you've told me?

Where exactly in this thread have you earned my trust?

[Redhead488]

109. I'm not in the corner,

you are. You refuse to acknowledge that Berger made his statement. Sticking your head in the sand will not make that fact go away

[Media_Lies_Daily]

120. Resorting to insulting comments is not going to make me believe...

...anything you have to say.

Speaking of having their "head in the sand", aren't you trying to convince me that the media is always truthful?

[Redhead488]

123. I'm not insulting you

I'm saying that you refuse to acknowledge a fact (Berger made a public statement in which he admitted wrong-doing) and you refuse to accept that. That means you have your head buried in the sand.

No I am not trying to convince you the media is always truthful; they aren't. They manipulate the facts to support their own views all the time.

[redqueen]

113. Nice technique

You say you believe a very specific and very suspicious right-wing talking point, then when someone directly contradicts them, you casually just stop mentioning it.

[Redhead488]

121. What right wing talking point?

I do believe that Berger took notes out in his pants. Why is that a right wing tlaking point?

[redqueen]

130. If I say 'in my pants' does that convey the same image as 'in my pocket'?

It's really obvious.

[Jackson4Gore]

28. Oh please just be quite

You can shout all you want. I am not so blinded by partisanship to see that he didn't do anything wrong. However, I can tell by your responses that you don't care about the charcater and the decency of our party. I have never said Berger did anything. I said if he did, it is bad because it shows he is trying to cover things up, just like the right wing, and it looks bad on Kerry by association. Apparently you can't see through your partisanship wall and resort to shout attacks to answer.

You know gosh gand well if Condi would have done this we would have been on her, and for good reason. There is just some things that politics should not be associated with.

[kikiek]

38. For one thing you are assuming intent. He says it was to study what

they had done to prevent the millenium attack which was successful. He wanted to review the notes again because it was very involved. It wasn't hiding anything. Put it into perspective without the hype. No information was missing from the commission report. Anything he threw out after reviewing were copies. It was done to help him review the actions they took during Clinton's admin to prevent a terrorist attack, and it was a successful plan. He had to testify and wanted to make sure he gave pertinent and accurate information, and it was 5 years after the plan. This has nothing to do with Kerry. Look around is all we are saying.

[Jackson4Gore]

45. Yes it does have something to do with Kerry

He is a democrat. If the nation sees this, true or not, they will automatically assume Clinton had something to hide. Then they will find out he was an advisor to Kerry. Then they will stupidly assume they were taken to protect Kerry, which is ludacris.

The press is dumb. I just don't want this to hurt Kerry or hurt the legacy of the Clinton admin.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

58. Oh, bull. You've take a nonexistent mole-hill and created a....

...major mountain range based on the extremely questionable reports you've read in the captive mainstream media.

Yes, the press is dumb...but what does that make anyone that believes what they report?

[Jackson4Gore]

65. Who the hell said he is guilty?

You keep implying that I said he is guilty. I have never. I have said this looks bad on the Dems. He admits he messed up. What more do you want? This is not a minor matter. This is national security. It is the highest amount of seriousnous there is. GET YOU FACTS.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

72. Read my post again...where did I use the word "guilty"? Sounds to....

...me like you just had a Freudian slip.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

51. I can see by ALL of your responses that you've either gone...

...completely around the bend, and/or that you initiated this thread just to stir up trouble where there is none.

Be "quite"??

NO, BY GOD...I WILL NOT BE QUIET AND WATCH PEOPLE LIKE YOU POST COMPLETE UNADULTERATED NONSENSE TRIGGERED BY NOTHING OTHER THAN YOUR OWN RUNAWAY WILD SPECULATION BASED ON STORIES PUBLISHED IN THE CAPTIVE MAINSTREAM MEDIA!

And I don't give a damn whether you personally like it or not.

And you are a complete horse's ass to accuse me or anyone else in this thread of not caring about the "character and decency of our party". Out of what nether region did you pull THAT one from???

[kikiek]

24. I don't believe in getting hysterical about somthing that we don't know

about yet. I ask again how is this connected to Kerry. He was an informal advisor.

[Jackson4Gore]

30. By association. It doesn't matter if he is informal or not

Anything a democrat like him does, affects the party by association just like Condi Rice or Colin Powell.

[kikiek]

44. You sound very committed to making this into something it isn't.

We aren't buying it. Oh did you hear France handed down a Halliburton indictment. That occured when a sitting vice president was ceo of that company. That reeks of rot yet you don't mention it. Why isn't that affecting the current administration. Add it to their woes of course. You really a democrat?

[Jackson4Gore]

48. You would please quit accusing people of not being democrats if they disa

with you. Yes I am a democrat. You know what, I also have this website that houses 400 daily members: http://www.algoresupportcenter.com/

You are very ignorate questioning someone's intentions because of their opinion on one thing. I condem the Bush admin everyday. If you don't beleive so, just look at my site. -

[kikiek]

52. You're the one attacking everyone for not being as anal as you are.

And it shows in that message implying I accuse people all the time of not being democrats if they disagree. You really are pot stirring and your act has gotten old. Have a great day. BYE

[Jackson4Gore]

55. Ha

You don't accuse people of not being dems for disagreeing? This is from your post #50: "You really a democrat?"

Please leave the thread and let the grown ups talk.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

79. The poster was asking you a question, not making an accusation....

...of any kind. This is just another instance of your demonstrated willingness to leap to conclusions that simply don't exist.

[Redhead488]

80. Sorta like you believing

that everything the "main-stream" media reports is false? LMAO

[Media_Lies_Daily]

90. Sorta like me believing anything YOU tell me is true based on....

...information YOU saw on the television or in the newspaper.

[Redhead488]

92. I saw Berger make his statement

As did millions of others. Now, you may choose to believe it did not happen, but that certainly shows everyone here how your mind works/doesn't work.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

108. So, if you post it, that makes it true? So, I should believe everything..

...posted on DU, especially if it's posted by you?

Interesting concept...but only if I lived in a perfect world.

[Redhead488]

111. You could try a novel approach:

Look it up.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

135. Post a link.

[Redhead488]

142. To common knowledge???

One is not required to post a link to an event that took place on every major news channel yesterdy evening.

[kikiek]

50. Let's hold everyone to that guilty by assoc thing. The whole WH

should be gone now. You hold the dems to one standard, but not anyone else. In particular the republicans.

[Jackson4Gore]

53. Give me a break. I said that the guilt by assoc is not fair, but predicta

You just can't face the fact that in any case it can't help, by only hurt Kerry and the Dems. The American people are ignorant, they will beleive anything.

[RoyGBiv]

25. Which Actions?

That's the question that the media is not really asking.

This whole story is running under the assumption that whatever actions were taken were explicitly illegal, yet no one can really say, for certain, what those actions were. Presumably, that's what has been under investigation for the better part of a year.

If it turns out Berger committed a crime, yes, he should be charged with that crime and prosecuted. I, however, am not convinced at this point that a crime of such grave import has been committed. If it was, and the FBI have evidence of this, why has he not been prosecuted already?

[Kukesa]

62. Excellent point, RGB. n/t

[sadiesworld]

29. He violated technical rules.

James Woosely said last night that he had committed a security violation once when he inadvertently took classified docs from a reading room. Someone from The National Archives stated on NPR yesterday that inadvertently taking docs was "not unheard of".

In your attempt to be evenhanded, I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

[redqueen]

161. Please let us know the source for that Woolsey admission

Trying to find the transcript/quote for future (and current) use. :)

Thanks!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. A really stupid move.

Whatever he was doing, he should have been aware of the rules, and the cost of breaking them. It can't do anything but hurt Kerry.

[bluedog]

59. microfilm

anyone can use the archives.........they also have "microfilm" copies of items......no biggy.all they have to do is look up the catalogs numbers to verify what he "took".....

http://www.archives.gov/research_room/obtain_copies/reproductions_overview.html

[Redhead488]

61. Really?

Anyone can go into the archives and review Codeword documents?

[bluedog]

67. don't know

about codeword docs..just skimmed the site.to see if they had "microfilms"......this is what the republicans are bitching about.....he took the docs..which?......microfilm would prove which ones....they are not lost forever like some would like the public to believe!

[Redhead488]

70. He took copies

Doesn't matter; they were still classified and he broke the rules. BTW, you won't be able to see on microfilm which documents he is alleged to have taken.

[leesa]

63. Sounds like belated Clinton bashing in order to distract from the REAL

criminals of the Bush Crime Family.

[59millionmorons]

64. One day story

With Berger stepping away, this story is over.

NEXT

[noonwitch]

66. Much ado about nothing

I don't think this is a very big deal. He may have broken the rules and perhaps should have to pay some kind of fine or something, but he really was just preparing for his testimony.

I also think that the GOP is going to run with this as long as they can, to distract from Bush/Cheney's record of unethical behavior. They don't really have that much else negative to throw at Kerry.

[vetwife]

85. Country so polarized..makes no difference

[Tellurian]

93. Why Waste Time on a Non-issue?

You become a reactionary bogged down in a Republican agenda, spending your days creating threads asking WHY... Why did they do this?

Reactionaries never win..just ask Movers and Shakers!

[Neshanic]

118. "Vulcan" Daschle.."The timing is troubling". Ya THINK?

[Tellurian]

131. Daschle is an esoteric exercise in impotence...

[TankLV]

138. Berger has the goods on bunkerboy and this gang of CRIMINALS.

He knows their history of conveniently having records "dissappear" or "inadvertantly destroyed" or similar.

These documents PROVE that the Clinton administration warned him and were particularly successful in stopping many terrorist attacks during his term, particularly the millineum attacks - all without any extra burocracy or stripping away of our bill of rights.

These documents also stop any LIES this gang of CRIMINALS occupying OUR White House are trying to spread about how it was either Clilnton's fault or that Clinton did not do enough to prevent any attacks or to stop AlQueda.

Which would you do - keep COPIES of documents that prove you acted honerably and risk potentially violating some secrets act - which is doubtful at the best - or comply with the laws as they stand and trust this gang of criminals to keep those records intact in case they are needed in the future?

This is a bigger story line here, if you look carefully.

[lanparty]

144. It reminds me of those Muslim Chaplins ...

... accused of treason. Ultimately, no charges were filed. The charges were made for political reasons AND a warning.

Berger is innocent. Michael Gergen (served under ALL modern presidents except Bush) has come out and said the documents were NOT missing. Finally, the documents that were supposedly missing were Berger's own notes.

[NightOwwl]

158. What do you make of these cases?

Valerie Plame outing
Bush's records "accidentally" destroyed by the Pentagon
Cheney and Halliburton's no-bid contracts
Cheney's secret energy meetings
No WMDs?
No Iraq/OBL connection?