Kerry's Campaign In Dissaray

[Annie]

Cool.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3395977/

 

[insein]

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.

OR

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.

 

[Annie]

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.

OR

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!

 

[tim_duncan2000]

I'll leave you with this thought: If Condi Rice had removed supersecret documents that seemed likely to embarrass the Bush Administration from the 9/11 Commission archives, and then claimed they were "lost," would the press be soft-pedaling it the way they're soft-pedaling this story? (And, for that matter, the story of Wilson's implosion?) I don't think so.

That's true. I don't know how anyone can say there is no media bias.

 

[UsaPride]

Isn't ignorance of the law no excuse?

 

[Merlin1047]

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.

 

[Yurt]

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 Long’s 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!

 

[Yurt]

Isn't ignorance of the law no excuse?

Only if the crime requires that you have the "requisite" intent.

 

[musicman]

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.

Neither objective fact nor immutable truth exist for the Democrats. Political expediency is the only constant.

 

[Shazbot]

Isn't ignorance of the law no excuse?

Exactly.

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.

-Douglas

 

[dilloduck]

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 Long’s 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!

Is your mom doing anything special for the next couple of months?

 

[Palestinian Jew]

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.

 

[freeandfun1]

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?

I have been asking the same question. The only thing that I can think of is this:

They might not have had the "authority" to stop him. So all they could do was report it.

 

[nycflasher]

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.

I agree.

Shit, my governor just resigned so that he wouldn't have to testify before Congress. Apparently he didn't know that it was illegal and unethical to accept gifts from those who have direct interest in state contracts.

People are pretty stupid.

Thing about Rowland is that he jsut got caught for blatantly doing what others do more subtly...

 

[freeandfun1]

I agree.

Shit, my governor just resigned so that he wouldn't have to testify before Congress. Apparently he didn't know that it was illegal and unethical to accept gifts from those who have direct interest in state contracts.

People are pretty stupid.

Thing about Rowland is that he jsut got caught for blatantly doing what others do more subtly...

but c'mon guys, do you really think he is that dumb? if you do, you might want to examine the people at the top of your party. I mean geeze..... it don't take no scientist to know you don't take documents out of a secure area. It is not like it was his first time ever doing something like that. I had a TSSBI myself, and I know that you are constantly being told what NOT to do with documents.

I can't believe you guys are being such apologists. You want Bush to apologize for 9-11, as if he were personally responsible, yet you just want to dismiss Bergler as having just made an "honest" mistake.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

but c'mon guys, do you really think he is that dumb?

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.

 

[insein]

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.

Gee ya think? I hope your not as gullable as these other fools, PJ. You may be a liberal but you have a brain. A guy goes in takes documents that are classified. Whether he's being honest or not about it being inadvertant, he still took them. Thats very illegal and very dangerous to our security.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

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.

And sticks them in his pants? Do you see the fallacy of your point?

Answer for Free wondering why Burgler wasn't stopped:
Maybe this wasn't the first time he was caught doing this and they (DOJ or ??) wanted to see what he was taking and where it ended up.

 

[freeandfun1]

And sticks them in his pants? Do you see the fallacy of your point?

Answer for Free wondering why Burgler wasn't stopped:
Maybe this wasn't the first time he was caught doing this and they (DOJ or ??) wanted to see what he was taking and where it ended up.

yes, very plausible too. i still am willing to bet they might have TRIED to say something and he probably just brushed them off with an, "I'm Sany Berger; don't you know who I am?" comment.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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.

Then wouldn't you think if it was truly an "HONEST MISTAKE" that when he got home and found papers in his pants and his socks he'd realize that they were TOP SECRET papers and he needed to return them?

And wouldn't you think he was smart enough - being former Top Security Advisor - that he had just "INADVERTENTLY" committed a FELONY? So wouldn't you think he would take GOOD care of those papers, not "LOSE" them, and return them immediately to where they belonged? That is, if he was an "HONEST" person?

Also, why would he make this "honest mistake" TWICE??

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.

I am sure the only reason that he "confessed" his "SLOPPINESS" to the press was because he was aware that they already had the on him in the form of a video security tape or a witness.

He already admitted the crime and he should do the time.
He should do more time than Martha Stewart - his crime is much worse.

I hope this story becomes real BIG and hurts the Democrats in the elections.