This thread from January 2001 offers some insight into how people felt about bi Laden prior to September 11th: If we know where Bin Laden is why don’t we pick him up? The price on Osama’s head at the time was $5 million dollars.
Yeah, like the days when they would fire off million dollar cruise missles at asprin factories?
I’ll take a couple cruise missiles over a $125+ billion invasion any day.
Was this a smear campaign that used a real crime to try and create a coverup scandal/conspiracy that never existed?
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/07/index.html#003374
Looks like. Officials are saying that all original documents are accounted for and always were.
In other words, our still anonymous leaker who suddenly in the middle of the summer decided to leak a year old case that had no recent developments to every newspaper he could find, including spacing out his revelations over several days, seemed to have left out or fudged certain facts to makes things look a lot more juicy than they otherwise would have been. Berger still looks guilty of taking copies which is a serious issue, but all the awash of motives about him trying to cover anything up look very pre-calculated and very smear. I wonder if Moto, Shodan, Razorsharp and others would care to comment?
I really don’t care what Sandy Berger’s motives were or are. They can’t alter the fact that he committed a serious crime and muct be held accountable for it.
More interesting than the people trying to inflate the case (which is serious, no matter how you slice it) is the people trying to explain it away, for what can only be partisan political motives.
Sure you do, or you would not have said this:
Or are we to believe that you, after discovering how easy it would be to assign motive, refrained from doing so because it would be wrong? :rolleyes:
Sure, and I allowed that he could have just been careless all along. Hence the use of the word “may”.
If you take me to task, I’ll be in good company. The Washington Post will be there with me.
“If we do not all hang together, we will surely hang separately.”
-Either way.
Oh, was that a different Mr. Moto widely speculating about Bergers’ motives based on details that now seem to be either wrong or grossly exaggerated?
And if you really didn’t care, then why did you continue to argue with people that had already several times over conceeded that Berger had committed a serious security breach that deserved investigation and probably a removal of his credentials.
Jeezus H. Fucking Christmas on a Popsicle Stick, we’re still debating this non-event?
Neocons: You been duped! Nothing to see here but a painfully careless beaurocrat.
Rabid Demos: Nothing to see here but a painfully careless beaurocrat whose dumbassedness has torpedoed his own career and threatened the campaign of his erstwhile future boss. Tragic.
Well I hate to break it to you but it seems that the Justice Department has taken a different perspective than you on this particular case.
Namely, that he committed no crime, serious or otherwise, and that he stands unaccused of any crime, serious or otherwise.
No, I hate to break it to you, RTA, but you’re quite wrong in you’re little dance there.
What Berger did was a crime, same as if I had done it. Anybody who works with these kinds of documents will tell you the same thing, and Berger himself admitted that he “technically” broke the law.
Now, as in any case of lawbreaking, there is discretion on the part of prosecutors and the judicial system on how to proceed. They may well decide not to press the matter, and just pull Mr. Berger’s access to classified material for the rest of his life. Given how he’s been employed in the past, this will put a real crimp in his lifestyle.
But just because there’s no prosecution, doesn’t mean there’s no crime. Hasn’t a cop ever let you go with a warning? It didn’t change the fact that you were going 75 down the road.
(This is my firs post on this, and so it is in reply to the OP, not to the ensuing discussion.)
Darn odd story. One of the oddest of an odd year.
If a real crime really occurred which was half as serious as you perpetrate it to be, he would be in irons right now. The matter is closed, finito. “No controlling legal authority” is calling what he did a crime, and wishing never made something so.
Personally I find it somewhat amusing that, following page after page of “Berger’s a Spy and a Thief”, we see what Berger did ultimately compared to someone getting pulled over for going a few miles over the speed limit.
I see the concept of an “analogy” is too much for your intellect to comprehend, RTA.
And there certainly is controlling authority, namely the United States Code:
As you can see, motive doesn’t figure in the text of this statute.
Now, as I said, prosecution may or may not proceed apace. But Berger is guilty of a crime by his own admission. And all of your spinning, RTA, won’t change that.
No charges. No plea. No prosecution. No verdict. Innocent until proven guilty? Berger is not guilty of anything. And all your break-dancing around these facts won’t change them either, Mr. Moto. Give it up, you’ve lost this round, no matter how righteous your indignation.
It’s easy enough for anyone to cite this or that law, but if Berger is not being prosecuted under it - and, to reiterate once more time, he is not being prosecuted for anything - then the point is moot. You might as well cite a law about obeying the posted speed limit.
If it was such a slam dunk case, him red-handed, embarassed “confession” etc., then please tell us: why isn’t he being prosecuted? Not “we know he’s guilty”, not “I know he did something bad, he said as much” - why isn’t he being prosecuted? (By law enforcement?)
For that matter, I still haven’t had it explained why news of this case finally leaked out months and months later, yet so immediately close to the release of the 9/11 report (other than the one, seemingly obvious reason - that it distracted some people terribly, those who still hold a grudge against anyone who ever had anything to do with Bill Clinton).
Have they done this? If not, is this still a possibility?
This is irrelevant to at least some of the discussion at hand. Motive DID figure into your breathless speculation about Berger, which is, frankly, at lot more at issue here than the fact that Berger did something wrong.