More From The 'Unbiased' AP

[Annie]

If the name Richard Armitage is here, I've missed it:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_re_us/cia_leak_trial

Libby heads to trial in CIA leak case

By MATT APUZZO and MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN, Associated Press Writers2 hours, 34 minutes ago

Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby goes on trial Tuesday over the administration's response to one critic who questioned assertions President Bush made four years ago to justify waging war against Iraq.

Once the right-hand man to Vice President Dick Cheney, Libby faces charges of perjury and obstruction of an investigation into the leak of a CIA officer's identity to reporters.

Libby joins a long list of presidents' men to face charges in the federal courthouse in the nation's capital — Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman in Watergate, Adm. John Poindexter and Marine Col. Oliver North in Iran-Contra....

Surprisingly the article fails to mention:

Sandy Berger , or Webb Hubble , as examples of 'president's men that had 'issues.' I'm sure that was just an 'oversite.'

 

[Adam's Apple]

Surprisingly the article fails to mention:
Sandy Berger[/URL] , or Webb Hubble , as examples of 'president's men that had 'issues.' I'm sure that was just an 'oversite.'

No oversight, Kathianne. As we are well aware, only Republicans receive that kind of scornful publicity in the MSM. When Dems do it, the MSM comes up with some pretty good verbage to excuse the crime and mock those who express concern.

 

[mattskramer]

If the name Richard Armitage is here, I've missed it:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_re_us/cia_leak_trial

Surprisingly the article fails to mention:

Sandy Berger , or Webb Hubble , as examples of 'president's men that had 'issues.' I'm sure that was just an 'oversite.'

Oh no. Yahoo did not mention Berger in the same article! You blow the whole thing out of proportion. Just do a search for Sandy Berger on Yahoo News. You will find some pieces. Besides Yahoo is not the only news source for Americans. If you want to find articles to confirm your bias, whatever your bias may be, it is not difficult to do.

Anyway, check out:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20070112/bs_ibd_ibd/2007111issues01

Of course you have news from World Net Daily:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53697

Here is something from the Washington Times.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070110-120727-4365r.htm

Bottom line: You can practically always find what you are looking for and complain that the news that you want broadcasted is not shouted all of the time from every news source.

 

[Annie]

Matts, I'm shocked and dismayed that you missed the context.

 

[mattskramer]

Matts, I'm shocked and dismayed that you missed the context.

“Libby joins a long list of presidents' men to face charges in the federal courthouse in the nation's capital — Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman in Watergate, Adm. John Poindexter and Marine Col. Oliver North in Iran Contra.”

Okay. If Democrats who are to face, or recently faced, charges in the federal courthouse in the nation’s capital, then they should be included in the article. If the article went on and on with a long list of alleged Republican wrongdoers without mentioning a Democrat wrongdoer, I would be more miffed about bias. Without it, I don’t see that much bias here. The article is predominantly about the Bush team and the Libby trial.

Anyway, if you don’t like the Yahoo “bias” limit yourself to National Review”.

 

[Annie]

“Libby joins a long list of presidents' men to face charges in the federal courthouse in the nation's capital — Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman in Watergate, Adm. John Poindexter and Marine Col. Oliver North in Iran Contra.”

Okay. If Democrats who are to face, or recently faced, charges in the federal courthouse in the nation’s capital, then they should be included in the article. If the article went on and on with a long list of alleged Republican wrongdoers without mentioning a Democrat wrongdoer, I would be more miffed about bias. Without it, I don’t see that much bias here. The article is predominantly about the Bush team and the Libby trial.

Anyway, if you don’t like the Yahoo “bias” limit yourself to National Review”.

I knew you could figure it out.

 

[Annie]

“Libby joins a long list of presidents' men to face charges in the federal courthouse in the nation's capital — Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman in Watergate, Adm. John Poindexter and Marine Col. Oliver North in Iran Contra.”

Okay. If Democrats who are to face, or recently faced, charges in the federal courthouse in the nation’s capital, then they should be included in the article. If the article went on and on with a long list of alleged Republican wrongdoers without mentioning a Democrat wrongdoer, I would be more miffed about bias.

But you aren't miffed at all, so you couldn't be 'more miffed'?

Without it, I don’t see that much bias here. The article is predominantly about the Bush team and the Libby trial.

Anyway, if you don’t like the Yahoo “bias” limit yourself to National Review”.

Another problem with the MSM, not just AP: Sandy Berger. Opening and concluding paragraphs:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/sandy_berger_what_did_he_take.html

Sandy Berger: What Did He Take and Why Did He Take It?
By Ronald A. Cass

Some things cry out for explanation. Like finding $90,000 in marked bills in a Congressman's freezer. Or finding out that a blue-chip lawyer who held one of the most important jobs in the nation was willing to risk his career, his livelihood, and his liberty to steal, hide, and destroy classified documents.

We all have a pretty good idea what the money was doing in Representative William Jefferson's freezer. But the questions about President William Jefferson Clinton's National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, just keep piling up.

It's time we got some answers.
**********

According to reports from the Inspector General of the National Archives and the staff of the House of Representatives' Government Operations Committee, Mr. Berger, while acting as former President Clinton's designated representative to the commission investigating the attacks of September 11, 2001, illegally took confidential documents from the Archives on more than one occasion. He folded documents in his clothes, snuck them out of the Archives building, and stashed them under a construction trailer nearby until he could return, retrieve them, and later cut them up. After he was caught, he lied to the investigators and tried to shift blame to Archive employees.

Contrary to his initial denials and later excuses, Berger clearly intended from the outset to remove sensitive material from the Archives. He used the pretext of making and receiving private phone calls to get time alone with confidential material, although rules governing access dictated that someone from the Archives staff must be present. He took bathroom breaks every half-hour to provide further opportunity to remove and conceal documents.

Before this information was released, the Justice Department, accepting his explanation of innocent and accidental removal of the documents, allowed Berger to enter a plea to the misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material - no prison time, no loss of his bar license. The series of actions that the Archives and House investigations detail, however, are entirely at odds with protestations of innocence. Nothing about his actions was accidental. Nothing was casual. And nothing was normal.

What could have been important enough for Berger to take the risks he did? What could have been important enough for a lawyer of his distinction to risk disgrace, disbarment, and prison?

To paraphrase the questions asked of Richard Nixon by members of his own Party, what did he take and why did he take it?

**********

The report released by Rep. Tom Davis last week makes plain that right now we cannot answer those questions. We cannot say what information in fact was lost through Mr. Berger's actions.

At President Clinton's request, he reviewed highly confidential material during four visits to the Archives over four months. Only Mr. Berger knows what transpired on his first two visits, when he reviewed collections of confidential memos, e-mails, and handwritten notes, including materials taken from counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke's office - all of which were not catalogued at the individual item level.

On Mr. Berger's third visit Archives employees became suspicious that he might be removing classified material. Rather than directly confront a former Cabinet-level official, Archives officials simply took steps to identify further theft on succeeding visits. That is how Mr. Berger's thefts on his fourth and last visit were documented.

We don't know what Mr. Berger might have removed from the uncatalogued materials reviewed in his earlier visits, but we know his last visit focused on a memorandum called the Millennium Alert After Action Report (MAAAR). Copies of this report were made available to the 9/11 Commission, but the information in those copies undoubtedly is not what interested Berger most. Berger took five copies of the report and later destroyed three of them.

...

...It is a story the news media should be desperate to explore, not desperate to avoid.

They should want to know the full story, no matter what the implications are for the legacy of a president much loved by an overwhelmingly liberal media or what the risks are for a former First Lady whose future is tied to her husband's past. Those risks loom especially large before a field of potential Republican presidential candidates with strong reputations in security matters - like Rudy Giuliani, for example, whose courageous performance on 9/11 still resonates.

Those who wrap themselves so frequently in the mantra of the people's right to know should want to know the truth - all the time. Sadly, today's would-be Woodwards and Bernsteins look more like ostriches than hawks, showing no curiosity about what Sandy Berger was hiding. Had that been the attitude when Watergate first appeared as a minor news story, Richard Nixon would have served out his full second term. The rest, as they say, is history.

Mr. Cass, Chairman of the Center for the Rule of Law and Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, served Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush as Commissioner and Vice-Chairman of the US International Trade Commission.