Discussion in 'Politics' started by Annie, Jul 21, 2004.
I hope people keeping pounding this because the truth needs to be told.
He either willingly stole classified documents in order to cover up something for Clinton.
He unkowingly and sloppily took classified documents and inadvertantly covered up something for Clinton.
I see no distinction other than semantics. If a normal person willingly crashes into a person and kills them, is that any different than an incompetant person crashing into a person and killing them? Either way the person is dead.
Either way, whatever Clinton wanted covered up is covered up. A further issue is this. If Berger was so incompetant that he accidentally took classified documents out of a classified area, then what the hell was he doing as our NSA for all those years? Also, why was he a chief advisor to Kerry if it was known that he was grossly incompetant?
Normally i'd say this was lose lose for the Dems, but the media will try to give them an out any chance they get.
You tell me, if you have papers stuck in your pants, socks, whathaveyou, think of that as an 'accident'? Bet ya walk funny!
That's true. I don't know how anyone can say there is no media bias.
Isn't ignorance of the law no excuse?
Ain't it truly amazing the metamorphosis which overtakes Democrats.
When they're screaming about the policies of the right, they present themselves as being oh-so-highly-intelligent and look down their noses at those pedestrian conservatives.
Yet when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they start acting dumb. It must be magic.
I think the part about "accidental" is pure spin. They witnessed him putting the papers in his coat and pants pockets. No way that is accidental. For that matter, even putting something in your one pants pocket, or whatever pocket, is NOT accidental. EX:
Ok, personal history 10 years old, mom took brother and I too Longs drugstore, mom went and bought her stuff while brother and I went off to the toy isle. We were playing with small miniatures of soldiers (die cast, maybe 1 inch tall. $2 value) and I stuck one in my pocket because my older brother was go destroy him. I completely forgot about it when mom called. When we got home, (before super high tech anti stealing devices), I reached into my pockets and found the toy soldier. I tried to explain to my mom that it was an accident, however, she still took me to the store and made me tell the manager that I took it. Yeah, I was pissed, but she said later, that she believed me, only that she wanted to show me that even accidental stealing is bad, because, it is still stealing.
So, all you democrats, is accidental stealing OK???? Prove me wrong, for if the crime requires intent, then OK, maybe you get something, but no one else put that in my pocket. Different story, when you are the one who committed the accident. Sure, since the intent is different, the crime will be labeled and sentenced differently. But it is still a crime!
Only if the crime requires that you have the "requisite" intent.
Neither objective fact nor immutable truth exist for the Democrats. Political expediency is the only constant.
Let's say I live in a state that allows me to enter into any lane of the road upon turning left. Then, I go to another state that only allows me to enter the inside lane on a left turn. If I pull into the far lane, a cop can still pull me over and ticket me, even if I simply didn't know it was a law. Ignorance may be bliss, but it's no free ticket.
Separate names with a comma.