Kerry's Campaign In Dissaray

ScreamingEagle said:
You don't go into a top clearance room like that with your briefcase and other files without being checked. You can't even take any notes you make out of the room with you. That's why he stuffed them in his pants.

:teeth:
That's so lame. I've had occasion to use a rare book room or two at a university. Locked down rooms w/attendants who keep an eye on you when you're looking at, say, an out of print T.S. Eliot tome. Believe me, there is No Way anybody would get out of that room with one of those books. And these are just rare books at a university--not top secret, classified government documents.

It's a joke that old Sandy didn't know what he was doing. How stupid does he think the American public is? Where are the papers now?

The sad thing is that we may never know what he was trying to hide by destroying those papers.

Totally bogus! Not a tempest in a teapot. A tempest. Period.
 
I have read in a couple of articles that the attendants at the archives noticed Berger stuffing his trousers with documents. Which makes me curious about a couple of things:

1. Why didn't they stop him, or at least call security?

2. Why haven't they had their asses fired for failing to perform their duty?

As for Berger's assertion that stuffing documents down the front of his pants was "sloppy", I think that's a pretty "phallacious" argument. :gs:
 
Merlin1047 said:
I have read in a couple of articles that the attendants at the archives noticed Berger stuffing his trousers with documents. Which makes me curious about a couple of things:

1. Why didn't they stop him, or at least call security?

2. Why haven't they had their asses fired for failing to perform their duty?

As for Berger's assertion that stuffing documents down the front of his pants was "sloppy", I think that's a pretty "phallacious" argument. :gs:

One question, is "phallacious" a dirty word? :tng:

On the rest, we are talking about the US gov't, which will never be a logical entity and has yet to fire anyone that I know of.
 
Palestinian Jew said:
That is exactly why I am hoping that this is an honest mistake, which it very well could be. I can easily picture him sitting at a table with a thousand papers strewn about and he just packs it all together and forgets to put some of the files back, although it is odd that he did go back and ended up taking the exact same document with him.

PJ, that's complete and utter bullshit and you know it!

Okay. Berglar is sitting at a table with 'a thousand papers strewn about'.

Let's say he's really engrossed in his work. Why in the HELL would you stuff some of them down into your socks? And your pants? That's deliberate and there's no way on God's green earth that anyone can honestly argue that he 'Accidently stuffed documents down his pants and socks'.

That's like saying I accidently got up and drove 300 miles to Fairbanks to go fishing.

Please! He deliberately stole the documents. The only real question is who was he trying to protect? Obviously it was very important to take the risk.

I want to know who he was covering for.
 
Kathianne said:
One question, is "phallacious" a dirty word? :tng:

Nope. It's not a word at all, but a twist on "fallacious". Combine that with the "go Steelers" smiley and draw your own conclusions.
:teeth:
 
Merlin1047 said:
Nope. It's not a word at all, but a twist on "fallacious". Combine that with the "go Steelers" smiley and draw your own conclusions.
:teeth:

Guess I'm twisted, I was stuck on pants.... :eek:

Who are the steelers? ~ducking~
 
Kathianne said:
Guess I'm twisted, I was stuck on pants.... :eek:

Who are the steelers? ~ducking~

Kathianne, you need to get out more. Either that or there needs to be a corrupting influence in your life.

Okay, I'll dissect it for you.

"Phallacious" - a twist on "fallacious" because Berger stuck documents down the FRONT of his pants. "Phallus" being a symbol for penis.

And a "Steeler" is a slang descriptor for a condition in which most males find themselves while watching the movie Cat Woman.

Yeeeesh. You know, it wasn't funny enough to be worth all this trouble.
:cheers2:
 
I have done a lot of things accidently. I have locked my keys in my car, I've knocked over someone's soda, I've dialed the wrong number on the phone. Never in my life have I accidently stuffed papers or anything else in my pants, much less my socks.

Of course, as we all know, if this were Condi Rice there would be screams about how corrupt the administration is, calls for Rice's resignation, and they would probably find a way to call for Rumsfelds resignation again.

I hope the Dems keep trying to justify this. The more they do it the more stupid they sound.
 
Palestinian Jew said:
What Berger did was wrong, but I don't think there were any malicious intentions. Republicans have been going on and on how he stole the report so that the Clinton Admin wouldn't look bad, but to believe that you would have to believe that Mr. Berger knows so little about the National Security Archives that he would think he could steal enough copies of the document that they would be gone.

O'Reilly made a very good point on the alledged stuffing of documents in pants and socks, why didn't the security people stop him if that is the case?

The partisanship on both sides has been sickening, what with Clinton laughing about it and Republicans accusing Kerry of trying to get classified info.

Whether it was an accident or not, Mr. Berger committed a crime, and depending on many theories, that crime could be very innocent or serious.

That stolen document which Sandy Berger (inadvertently) destroyed has now been identified and the contents now known. There is no need to find that destroyed or shredded document.

It was reported yesterday that the information dealt with O. Bin Laden. Apparently this brave sand crawling bearded suicide bomber was offered to the US on four separate occasions during the Clinton administration. Mr. Berger in his position as National Security Adviser nixed the taking or killing of this guy basically because Berger was afraid of the response from the Muslim world.

Not much of a surprise. All that hullabaloo about his decisions during those years. The problem arises with the theft of any classified documents by a former National Security Adviser who knew the ramifications of his actions.

I would be very surprised if there were not video cams in every area where classified documents are maintained and this theft was not videotaped.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040723-111413-2905r.htm
 
Cover up.

Admit to Clinton not accepting Bin Laden who was offered up on a silver platter - which is already public knowledge? Bullshit.

This makes absolutely no sense. You don't steal documents that spell out what is common knowledge already.

No, there was something worth going to prison for, and it's a bombshell to take that kind of risk.
 
NightTrain said:
Cover up.

Admit to Clinton not accepting Bin Laden who was offered up on a silver platter - which is already public knowledge? Bullshit.

This makes absolutely no sense. You don't steal documents that spell out what is common knowledge already.

No, there was something worth going to prison for, and it's a bombshell to take that kind of risk.


Night Train, is 'public knowledge' which is not written down any verifiable proof of a crime. Can you either prosecute or validate negligence by elected or appointed officials of government which have endangered our people or our shores, based on public knowledge?
 
Palestinian Jew said:
That is exactly why I am hoping that this is an honest mistake, which it very well could be. I can easily picture him sitting at a table with a thousand papers strewn about and he just packs it all together and forgets to put some of the files back, although it is odd that he did go back and ended up taking the exact same document with him.

This potential martyr HOPES that Berger made an honest mistake. WHAT possible motivation could PJ have for the obfuscation of a government official's crime relating to America's safety?

Does PJ hope that Bin Laden has also made a merry mistake by attacking America on 09/11? For PJ's sake, his hopes are based on the very same prosecutor who successfully tried and sentenced Martha Stewart and now investigates the 'Berger theft of classified documents' under the watchful eyes of those who job it is to do just that.
 
ajwps said:
Night Train, is 'public knowledge' which is not written down any verifiable proof of a crime. Can you either prosecute or validate negligence by elected or appointed officials of government which have endangered our people or our shores, based on public knowledge?


Actually ajwps, it's in the 9/11 Commission Report, so is written down. Whether or not he will be prosecuted is another matter.

Excerpts:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/215075p-185171c.html

Well, look now to what the 9/11 report has to say about the man to whom President Clinton, under attack by an independent counsel,delegated so much in respect of national security, Samuel “Sandy” Berger. The report cites a 1998 meeting between Mr. Berger and the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, at which Mr. Tenet presented a plan to capture Osama bin Laden.

“In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted,” the report says, citing a May 1, 1998, Central Intelligence Agency memo summarizing the weekly meeting between Messrs. Berger and Tenet.

In June of 1999, another plan for action against Mr. bin Laden was on the table. The potential target was a Qaeda terrorist camp in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms. The commission report released yesterday cites Mr. Berger’s “handwritten notes on the meeting paper” referring to “the presence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60-65 casualties.”According to the Berger notes, “if he responds, we’re blamed.”

On December 4, 1999, the National Security Council’s counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, sent Mr. Berger a memo suggesting a strike in the last week of 1999 against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Reports the commission: “In the margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, ‘no.’ ”

In August of 2000, Mr. Berger was presented with another possible plan for attacking Mr. bin Laden.This time, the plan would be based on aerial surveillance from a “Predator” drone. Reports the commission: “In the memo’s margin,Berger wrote that before considering action, ‘I will want more than verified location: we will need, at least, data on pattern of movements to provide some assurance he will remain in place.’ ”

In other words, according to the commission report, Mr. Berger was presented with plans to take action against the threat of Al Qaeda four separate times — Spring 1998, June 1999, December 1999, and August 2000. Each time, Mr. Berger was an obstacle to action. Had he been a little less reluctant to act, a little more open to taking pre-emptive action, maybe the 2,973 killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks would be alive today.

Why was it Mr. Berger rather than President Clinton himself making all these judgment calls? As the report puts it, these decisions “were made by the Clinton administration under extremely difficult domestic political circumstances.Opponents were seeking the president’s impeachment.”

One can blame the special prosecutor law or Mr. Clinton for agreeing to name a special prosecutor, or one can blame the underlying reckless behavior by Mr. Clinton that got him into the “difficult domestic political circumstances.” Or one can blame the Republican Congress. No matter what one’s view of the underlying merits, it is hard to deny that one of the costs to the country was a preoccupied president.There’s no guarantee that, in the absence of the scandal and the prosecutor, Mr. Clinton would have acted against Mr. bin Laden. But the chances would have been at least somewhat increased, and it would have been Mr. Clinton rather than Mr. Berger making the call.

The boldness of the president, in Justice Scalia’s phrase,had been lost,and the man left in charge, Mr. Berger, was not up to it. When we think of the repairs that need to be made in the coming months, it is of this: The need to carry on our national politics with an eye to protecting the boldness of our leaders and particularly in a time of war. It is something to think about amid one of the bitterest, most adhominem political seasons in the history of the Republic.
 
Kathianne said:
Actually ajwps, it's in the 9/11 Commission Report, so is written down. Whether or not he will be prosecuted is another matter.

Excerpts: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/215075p-185171c.html

Kathianne actually I meant the 'smoking gun' evidence of the actual note or signed paper that has mysteriously disappeared in a shredder. Mr. Berger says inadvertently destroyed classified document(s).

The fact that the 9/11 Commission has put down it's allegations on paper does not give direct evidence of intentional theft of a classified document.

Clinton and Berger knew that from Watergate and Enron.
 

Forum List

Back
Top