Just can't get enough of those sugar smacks

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 7:39 pm

Well, I kinda thought when Clinton got out of orafi...er office, that the scandels that collected around him like head lice were over. No more missing Rosehill Law firm papers. No more Whitewater and hopefully no more dead men walking. Nope. Seems like we just can't get rid of the blighter:

"President Clinton (news - web sites)'s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, is the focus of a criminal investigation after admitting he removed highly classified terrorism documents from a secure reading room during preparations for the Sept. 11 commission hearings, The Associated Press has learned."

http://tinyurl.com/4whgr

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 7:41 pm

Um... crap.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:15 pm

I dunno, shoving classified documents on terrorism from the National Archives in your jacket and pants prior to the 9-11 Commission just smells less than lemon fresh to me. I'll be interested to hear what the FBI has to say during their criminal investigation. Do people really just accidentally shove classified documents in their pants? I like the part that goes, "I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded." Oops. Sounds more like a "National Security Revisor".

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:30 pm

It can't be anything serious because those documents pertain to the period before Bush became president and everyone knows Bush is to blame for everything bad.
Besides...John Kerry served in Vietnam!

Hostile · Post by **Hostile** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 11:41 pm

and has 3 purple hearts Will....Don't forget that.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 8:03 am

wow, just like Bush's military records were destroyed...accidentally

on another note, I don't understand your comment Will. You said that "we" being liberals blame Bush for everything. I never blamed Bush for 9/11. You have to be on the edge to try that, but he certainly messed up on this war on terror money making for halliburton scam. Had the whole world with us after 9/11, now 90% of the world considers us the biggest threat.

Vertigo 99 · Post by **Vertigo 99** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 8:40 am

Even the french were with us after 9/11

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 8:52 am

Z, Halliburton's last two quarterly earnings statements showed a loss. btw, we are the biggest threat.

Let me know who the remaining 10% are and I'll fire off a letter just to bring them up to speed.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 8:53 am

link bash?

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 8:53 am

http://www.Halliburton.com

Or if you don't want to poke around:

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?act ... itemid=158
http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.as ... d=&teaser=

But, either way, no Bush folks work for Halliburton so I've never been quite clear on why lefties always bring it up. Or for that matter what it has to do with Clinton's National Security Advisor shoving classified terrorism memos down his pants and then *losing* them. Granted, Berger's pants are quite large but I'm sure he could borrow one of Clinton's old intern sex buddies to play *Hide The Memo* and maybe recover them.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:05 am

Well bash, from what I saw, even posting a loss they still gained tremendously from the previous year. Going from an operating income loss of $112 million, to a positive $720 million is not a bad year huh? And that revenues were up 4 billion? Why didnt you see that?

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:10 am

I never meant to suggest Halliburton hasn't profited from it's Iraqi contracts. After all, that's what it does is repair infrastructure and it is in the business of making a profit, is it not? Folks also conveniently forget Halliburton has had more than its share of worker casualties. Frankly, the entire Halliburton thing is one giant stinky red herring and most folks, I believe, recognize that.

But we digress. Back to Sandy's bulging crotch area...

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 1:51 pm

Where did I say anything about 'liberals' Zuruck?
And by the way, what does Haliburton have to do with this topic?

And while we're asking questions....

How do you innocently remove classified documents from a secured location in your socks!!

"Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio." - from here

Go ahead, spin this all you can Zuruck, it's actually amusing to me.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 2:02 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Where did I say anything about 'liberals' Zuruck?
And by the way, what does Haliburton have to do with this topic?

Kinda reminds you of Rican having the uncanny ability to turn every thread into an evolution discussion, no matter what the topic.

How do you innocently remove classified documents from a secured location in your socks!!

LOL...

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 3:34 pm

Sandy Berger resigned from the Kerry campaign:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126358,00.html

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:00 pm

This is a text book example of a politically manipulated election season press feeding frenzy.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:22 pm

I dunno, I think that someone that worked for party A stealing confidential documents from a committe designed to discover what the party B President did wrong while working for party A's presidential candidate is a textbook case of fraud.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:44 pm

It can't be both?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 8:23 pm

Vander wrote:It can't be both?

Only in hollywood.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 8:27 pm

Don't blame politics Vander.

It's reasonable to expect a political party to sieze every opportunity to expose the opposition when they falter.

It's not reasonable to expect a national security advisor to smuggle classified documents hidden in his clothing.

And asking us to believe it was an innocent mistake....come on!!! Save that shiz for your core constituency because the rest of us have a brain!!!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 8:38 pm

One could understand some papers being inadvertantly being mixed up with some papers and placed in the brief case. When you take papers and make cod pieces and ankle supports from them...well you gotta draw the line.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:04 pm

So the master has come the aid of his dog and offered one of his typical excuses. We're apparantly to believe Sandy Bergers lack of orginization skills led to the papers finding their way into his pants and socks!

I just have to ask, is there no shame? Can you guys who support Berger/Clinton/Kerry really tell me this 'excuse' offered by Clinton makes you feel good? Does anyone want to come foward and help Slick Willie shovel this pile of shiz?

"Former president Bill Clinton defends his embattled national security advisor as a man who "always got things right," even if his desk was a mess.

"We were all laughing about it," Clinton said about the investigation into Sandy Berger for taking classified terrorism documents from the National Archives. "People who don't know him might find it hard to believe. But ... all of us who've been in his office have always found him buried beneath papers.

....Clinton said, describing his former security advisor as a "workaholic" who has "always been up to his ears in papers.""

from here

This really is getting embarrasing just to read it!

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 11:44 am

Vander, let it go. You'd be alllllll over the republicans, and you know it, no matter what the timing.

let this guy rot. We have to set a standard for "lost" documents. To jail with him!

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 11:55 am

Will, "embarrassing" is watching supposedly intelligent people speculate about how Berger stuffed his socks with documents.

Brian, I don't think I'd be all over Republicans if the situation were reversed. If Berger took things he shouldn't have, he should be held accountable. I'm not saying he deserves a pass. I'm trying to put this in perspective.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:10 pm

Well if that's the case wouldn't the perspective be that he stole documents that detailed Clinton's actions against terrorism from a commission that stated that Bush didn't do enough intelligence gathering? It's not that far of a leap to put it in perspective of the upcoming election and realize that this could have been damage control for the Democratic party, transferring any heat that Clinton would have received for poor intelligence detailed in that document to Bush, effectively shifting Clinton's responsibilities during his term to Bush's, which began 9 months before 9/11.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:35 pm

"Well if that's the case wouldn't the perspective be that he stole documents..."

Ok, you're suggesting what he took is something that the commission hasn't seen. From the reports I've seen, he took copies of the original documents. In other words, whatever he took wasn't getting "disappeared."

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:53 pm

I dunno, it seems to swing either way.

MSNBC wrote:Breuer said Berger believed he was looking at copies of the classified documents, not originals.

In any event, is it really possible for the national security advisor to accidentally take home multiple copies of a strictly classified report and then accidentally discard them? If he were to discard anything that he had taken home, I think his immediate reflex would have been the shredder, not forgetfully tossing it in the garbage pail.

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:23 pm

V, it's been reported there were several variants of the memo that the commission hasn't seen, but it's not really the point. Yet. The point is he stole classified documents. I don't care if they were Nancy Reagan's Pot Brownie recipes, I've yet to hear a motive for shoving classified documents in your pants and sneaking them out of the National Archive. Lot's of *Oh, that's just Sandy* and *Suspicious timing for this to come out* but, um, why did he steal the documents in the first place?

btw, a loud wet raspberry for your boy, Joe Wilson.

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:42 pm

In related news...

Berger Leaves Kerry Campaign After 'Thorough Frisking'

(2004-07-21) -- Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, former national security advisor to President Bill Clinton, today left the presidential campaign staff of John Forbes Kerry, after "a thorough frisking and examination of his briefcase."

The premature departure follows the announcement of an FBI probe of Mr. Berger on allegations that he stole classified documents from the U.S. National Archives.

"We're sad to see our trusted friend, Sandy Berger, leave the Kerry-Edwards campaign," said Mr. Kerry, "But we're glad to have a chance to recover some items that had gone missing while he was here."

Mr. Kerry, who is also a U.S. Senator, said the search of Mr. Berger's person and effects turned up the only existing copy of a missing Kerry-Edwards document called "Our Unshakable Beliefs" which Mr. Berger had accidentally misplaced in his left ear.

In his defense, Mr. Berger said, "the document was quite small, and I think it just stuck to my fingernail and then got lost in my ear hair. It's a sloppy mistake that anyone could make."

Heh!

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001769.html

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:51 pm

That quote doesn't state that what was taken were not copies, just that Berger thought they were copies. In that same article you'll find this:

The Justice Department is investigating whether Berger committed a crime by removing from the National Archives copies of documents about the governmentâ??s anti-terror efforts and notes that he took on those documents.

Jeff, I don't know why he took the documents. None of us do. Hell, he could have taken them to give to bin Laden! Perhaps he took them to review them at more length than would have been afforded in a National Archive viewing room. Either way, he took them, and should be held accountable.

But I still contest that this news story and its timing were politically manipulated. And it doesn't even have to be an evil conservative plot. Hell, it could have even been leaked by a Berger rival to eliminate competition for National Security Advisor in a possible Kerry administration. The story just smells of calculation.

*edit - Should I hold my breath waiting for speculation that this is a Clinton job? You know, sinking Kerry so that Hillary can be president?

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:52 pm

lol.

even if it was an accident, WHO CARES! Losing classified documents deserves severe punishment.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:06 pm

The news didn't hold back on this until now; someone on the inside leaked it at just the right time. This did, after all, happen a year ago.

On Birds' note, I wonder who's responsible for letting the Pentagon's microfilm get destroyed.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:45 pm

"btw, a loud wet raspberry for your boy, Joe Wilson."

hmm?

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:57 pm

I recall sometime last year we were scuffling about the Wilson/Plame kerfuffle. With Joe's recent discreditation... I'm just sayin'.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 3:20 pm

His central claim, that there was little to no evidence that Iraq had sought or bought "yellowcake" from Niger, hasn't been discredited, has it?

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 3:47 pm

Yep. Have you been under a rock this week? Granted, the media is doing it's best to bury the story but both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report have come out saying he had no basis for his claims. Since I know this is one of your reads, here's a link http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072004.shtml or http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071204.shtml. If you need a more mainstream source, there's plenty at the WaPo.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 3:52 pm

So there is credible evidence supporting the claim that Iraq sought or bought "yellowcake" from Niger? It's off topic, so maybe we should carry this into another thread, but I'd like to see it.

*edit- Yes, I read the Daily Howler, which is why I don't think I would classify Wilson as "my boy."

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 3:56 pm

Well, IIRC, you were taking his side last year, or at least regarding some conspiracy to out his wife (his claims of non-recommendation from Plame also have been discredited). Suffice to say, Joe ain't gonna work in that town again.

The failure to find significant stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons or an active nuclear program in Iraq has caused some war opponents to claim that Iraq was never much to worry about. The Niger story indicates otherwise. Like the reporting of postwar weapons investigator David Kay, it suggests that Saddam Hussein never gave up his intention to develop weapons of mass destruction and continued clandestine programs he would have accelerated when U.N. sanctions were lifted. No, the evidence is not conclusive. But neither did President Bush invent it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... ailarticle

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 4:55 pm

On Yellowcake/Niger/Iraq:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archiv ... php#003169

On the "claims of non-recommendation," I'm not so sure they have been discredited. The Sentate Intel report made the conclusion, but it was one of the two points there was dissent on. The CIA has continuously stated that Wilson's name did not come up because of a Plame suggestion. A fact which did not appear in the report.

If you want to discuss this further, maybe we should start a different thread.

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 5:19 pm

Josh Marshall? Heh. That guy's in serious damage control. Can't blame him though since Wilson's credibility and Marshall's are interwoven. IIRC, Marshall has been Wilson's biggest cheerleader. As far as a new thread on the topic, whatever you want but I'm satisfied that Wilson was a vane partisan opportunist that overstated an opinion that hasn't held up under scrutiny. His 15 minutes are up. Cya, Joe.