Well, you can grasp at that straw if you want to. I doubt it’s going to have much traction. It tends to open you up to embarrassing questions about some folks in the Bush administration, don’t you know? Like, why is Dick Cheney still working for the WH? He’s not only under investigation for the Plame leak he’s facing criminal charges for bribery and money laundering while he was at Halliburton.
Should we also bring up some of the other convicted felons that have worked for the current administration?
Let’s try the old guilt by association game and see how far that gets us.
No, just an addendum to point out the difference between Arnold’s rhetoric and Berger’s “inadvertant mistake(s)”, so as to shine the light on typical leftwing hypocrisy.
See, you snidely remarked that “Hannity and Coulter are yucking this up”, when “yucking this up” infers that they are “making much ado about nothing”, when in fact, what Berger did appears to have been a criminal act.
Whereas, it is the Left that is doing the “yucking” by making something out of nothing with regards to Arnold’s “girly man” comment.
Is it all coming clear to you now, or did I WHOOSH you?
As far as I can tell, the only plausible explanation is that he didn’t expect much more to come of it. This all happened back in October, and most of it seemed to have been resolved back then. The investigation is ongoing mostly in the sense that they haven’t figured anything out, but Berger and his lawyer both seem to have been under the impression that the people in charge of the investigation felt Berger was cooperating and his involvement was basically over. They clearly didn’t expect a leak or realize that they were so vulnerable to someone making it into a big story.
They forgot how red meat works: tons of examples of actual misconduct leading to actual harm can be glibly brushed aside to focus on what, even from the standpoint of the prosecutors, seems to have been a non-event with no legs.
Let’s see: you brought up a completely irrelevant point, and then responded to it as if you were disagreeing with a third-party.
[quote[See, you snidely remarked that “Hannity and Coulter are yucking this up”, when “yucking this up” infers that they are “making much ado about nothing”, when in fact, what Berger did appears to have been a criminal act.[/quote]
I don’t know if you know this, but paragraphs often continue past the first sentance. I wasn’t complaining about the fact that people were mentioning it, but rather that they were casting all sorts of conspiracy theories around without even bothering to explain what the conspiracy was or would be for.
I don’t believe I or anyone else ever brought this up. And the issue there isn’t the comment, but the cracked behavior of Arnold: instead of just passing a budget like he promised, he tried to push in two unrelated special interest pork items: when this was rebuffed, he sputtered about the Democrats and then threatened a scorched earth campaign against them. All because they blocked some random pork project from one of his contributors that didn’t even have any relevance to the budget dispute as a whole. As before: news stories often continue on past the headlines. It’s usually in smaller text though, so it’s sometimes easy to miss.
I have to day, an “honest mistake” made five or six times in a row seems less and less plausible with each infraction. It is not unreasonable to surmise that Berger had a self-serving reason for doing this. That may not be true, it’s just not unreasonable. In my mind, in fact, it’s probable.
Again, here’s hoping like hell Kerry knew nothing about this. If Berger hid the details from Kerry, the only thing for him to do (if he’s a team player) is fall on his own sword and do anything possible to exonerate Kerry.
The Pubs are likely to make as much out of this as they possibly can. It’s the least that could be expected in an election year. The race is so tight that anything potentially damaging to Kerry is unacceptable. If Berger broke the law (looks as if he did), for whatever reason, he may have to bite it, and bite it hard.
Like I said, stupid, under any circumstances, but especially now.
I haven’t actually heard many Dems making an issue out of Arnold’s “girlie man” comment.
That’s the wrong comparison anyway. The right comparison would be to the Chalabi fiasco and the Plame hit. Two things you won’t hear Hannity or Coulter go near.
The more that comes about about this Berger story, the more I realize how fake it is. It’s a red herring leaked by the Bushistas as part of an electioneering tactic. It’s disgusting the way the media obediently focuses on this non-story rather than the truely disturbing Chalabi story.
Anyone who is going to give Bush a pass on Chalabi and Plame simply lacks the credibility to whine about Berger.
I can name some covicted felons who were hired by Bush to work in some very sensitive positions. John Poindexter, for instance. My point was only that if Bush supporters really want to try to make some sort of specious guilt-by-association case inre: Berger and Kerry, that tactic is going to backfire on them.
I’m still trying to find a plausible motivation for Berger to deliberately sneak those documents out. What would have been the point?
The documents have been read already, and various Important People have their own copies.
Clinton’s various efforts against terrorism have already been extensively documented in public, despite the Republicans’ repeated chanting of the “Clinton did nothing” mantra.
Similarly, Bush’s lack of concern towards terrorism has already been well-documented in public, primarily from the 9/11 Commission hearings earlier this year. Even if they weren’t, the documents wouldn’t have covered that ground anyway, and would be useless as a weapon against Bush.
So what’s the motivation for Berger to deliberately sneak these documents out? It’s all water under the bridge; the only plausible use they have is as a reminder for what he was thinking at the time they were originally written. In that light, the notion that this is all just a goof-up is the only one that makes sense.
That’s exactly right, Clinton did nothing. Let me put it in perspective for you.
The only difference in the first attack on the World Trade Center and the attack of 9-11, is that the 9-11 attack was deemed a success by achieving the desired results of total destruction. The terrorists that were responsible for the first bombing, had every intention of bringing the towers to the ground and killing as many Americans as possible. The first attempt did not achieve the desired results.
Clinton let Osama off the hook. Clinton is more responbsible than Dubya for 9-11.
What indeed? Thing is, it appears he made this “goof-up” on five separate occasions, at least. This is one of those “you’re either guilty or you’re stupid” situations. In any event, Berger can probably kiss any aspirations to a Cabinet position goodbye. Unless Berger pulls some impressive rabbit out of a hat to save his own bacon, he is now past-tense as far as Kerry’s campaign and future administration are concerned.
The primary concern I have is what kind of smear potential this incident provides. Berger is history, be he bound for a conviction or not. What kind of hay can the Republicans make out of this? It’s not the crime, it’s the suspicion of what motivated the crime, and the fact the alleged crime was perpetrated by abusing documents related in any way to the sacred cow of National Security. I mean, with Ashcroft heading the DOJ, and war on terror in full-swing? This is a “goof” of potentially destructive proportions, mostly for Berger, but potentially for Kerry. It’s Kerry that I worry about, and all I can say is I very much hope all concerned can completely dissociate Kerry from Berger henceforth.
By all accounts, Mr. Berger, although certainly an intelligent man, was the forgetful “where-did-I-put-my-car-keys” type person.
Based on that, and on the fact that he readily admitted his lapse and readily turned over the documents, and that he was working with copies anyway – no way he destroyed any paper that was unique – it seems the easiest and most likely scenario is that he simply zoned out and abesent-mindedly tooks notes papers away that he shouldn’y have. While I think this doesn’t bode well for his keeping a security clearance, I think it’s incorrect to ascribe any nefarious motives to the man. It’s simply a screw-up - a mistake. Nothing sinister or underhanded.
Bricker, I don’t care if it was a copy or not. A copy of a classified document is still a classified document. It still has all the sensitive information in it.
And it’s loss, and subsequent disclosure, would cause our country equal damage had it been a copy or an original.
Limbaugh is talking about this as I write. He’s arguing that Berger played a major role as a Kerry advisor/spokesman, and that Kerry’s subsequent characterization of Berger as an “informal advisor” is dishonest damage control.
As you might expect, Rush is also stating as fact his claim that “the Clinton administration” deliberately tried to make these documents disappear because they are “personally embarrassing to Clinton.” He’s also complaining that the Dems have leaked new leaks to draw attention away from the GOP’s leaks. Which, in turn…
Whatever the case, it looks bad at a glance, and that’s all that matters as far as the news factory is concerned. Most people will form an impression and follow it no further, especially if the investigation drags on. Something else will come up in the next news cycle and the tug of war will go on.
Never mind the absurdity of the suggestion that Sandy Berger is “disclosing” anything to the enemy, I’m just curious how the hypothetical disclosure of obsolute, Clinton-era documents would cause our country damage. Maybe Berger sold the docs to time travelling terrorists?
If Berger loses the documents, they are no longer under positive control by the government. That means they could wind up anywhere.
Including the hands of terrorists. We just don’t know.
And the documents in question were candid assessments of America’s vulnerability to terrorism. Maybe you’re sanguine that we’ve fixed all of the problems identified, but I’m surely not.
I’m certainly not suggesting that Berger sold us down the river here, but I will clearly assert that his reckless actions put our country at risk. Those procedures are in place for good reason. People have died in the past because they were violated.
Berger shouldn’t ever, EVER, be allowed near a classified document at any time in the future, with this track record. He just forfeited forever any trust the American public once vested in him. I think we should all agree on this basic point.
My comment was intended to rebut the inference that Mr. Berger was seeking to remove and destroy documents that would have embarrassed him specifically or the Democrats in general.
I agree that the disclosure of a copy is as damaging as the disclosure of an original. What I don’t see here is: (1) Any evidence that such disclosure occurred, and (2) Any infomration about just how damaging, if at all, the disclosure of these documents would have been. Do you have any solid information in this regard?