« What Does It Mean To Be A Liberal? | Main | Why Is The ACLU Still Tax Exempt? »

House Republicans Call For Investigation Into Improper Handling Of Documents

This is an investigation that needs to take place.

A group of House Republicans called Wednesday for a congressional investigation into the improper handling of classified documents by President Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger.

Berger admitted last year that he deliberately took classified documents out of the National Archives in 2003 and destroyed some of them at his office. He pleaded guilty in federal court to one charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material and was fined $50,000.

Ten lawmakers led by House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., released a letter calling for the House Government Reform Committee to investigate.

They asked the committee to determine whether any documents were missing from Clinton administration terrorism records, to review security measures for classified documents and to seek testimony from Berger.


Comments (42)

Is this where the Democrats... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Is this where the Democrats are supposed to yell "foul"? Only a wuss would yell foul when the campaigns kick into high gear.

One difference between Democrats and Republican is that nothing is going to knock us off message, the way Foley knocked the Republicans off-message for ten (count'em) ten days.

It's catch-up time. Good luck.

I agree, Lee, that the timi... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

I agree, Lee, that the timing stinks. I think this should have been done years ago, and not just by Republicans. Democrats, if they are truly concerned about national security, should join in asking for an investigation. I am really biased on this subject, not just because I am Republican, but more so because I used to be a paralegal working with large volumes of sensitive documents. I have been bitching about this one for more than two years now. This post at Polipundit was my first on the subject. I have brought this subject up many other times between then and now. Yeah, this one is way overdue.

Wow.You mean the D... (Below threshold)
Wanderlust:

Wow.

You mean the Democrats actually have a message, Lee dearest?

Other than "vote for us; we're NOT like the Republicans!"...or, perhaps, "vote for us; we're against [insert favorite BDS bashing topic here; e.g., tax cuts, GWOT, draft, internment, open borders, closed borders, troops in Iraq, war with [NK, Iran, China, Iraq, etc., etc.], supporting Israel vs Palestinians, blaming Hezbollah for the fighting in Lebanon, or anything Kerry was for, before he was against]

Ok, I'll take the bait: I'll consider voting Democratic. What exactly is your chosen party's message, Lee?

Hmmm.

Let's review the record of Presidents:

LBJ: subversion of the War Powers Act by placing a spook boat in harm's way off Vietnam, to give us the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (1964, repealed in 1968), resulting in a massive US military buildup in Vietnam - 580,000 troops by end of his presidency - and don't forget the Great Society scheme that bred pervasive generations of poor people dependent upon welfare

Carter: gutted the military, 21% inflation rates, destabilized the Shah, failed to defend US territory from invasion (US Embassy), gave up strategic asset (Panama Canal), and killed NORAD patrols of CONUS

Clinton: Agreed to Framework 1994, internet bubble economy, political influence by Chinese, gutted the military while using it as a hapless police force, ignored terrorist threat that sprang out of the ashes of the Cold War (bombings of US territory or assets in 1993, 1996, and 1998), the Gorelick Wall, lax enforcement of tax and securities laws affecting major corporations (Enron, WorldCom, Arthur Andersen) and committed perjury (for which he was impeached by the House, acquitted by the Senate, but was disbarred in Arkansas once his second term as President ended)

Finally, compare and contrast the losers of two very, very close elections: Nixon (1960) vs Gore (2000). Nixon's loss was razor-thin, amidst allegations that Joe Kennedy Sr. bought son John's election as President. Nixon, however, refused to pursue vote fraud allegations because he believed his doing so would split the country. He conceded defeat graciously, and went on to be elected by wide margins in 1968 and 1972. By contrast, Gore contested the election all the way to the Supreme Court, and grumbled when he lost there. Subsequent recounts conducted by several newspapers of record validated GWB's election.

Shoot, if only your party had someone who was responsible and stood on his/her principles, like Truman did...sigh.

But you don't.

Your party is against everything, but responsible for nothing.

And that, in a nutshell, is why your so-called "message" is nothing more than an empty suit.

Suspicious timing! Using th... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Suspicious timing! Using the investigation system for partisan gain! Um... wait, what were those other Republican talking points?

All right Brian...Let's ass... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

All right Brian...Let's assume for a moment that this is a purely partisan move.So what? After all the purely partisan cheap shots and dirty tricks the Democrats have pulled off in recent years what possible grounds could Democrats have to object to this tactic? That the accusation didn't target the entire party for the actions of one man-like Foleygate? That it only happened 3 years ago and not 25-like the Bush DUI story from 2000? Or was the accusation not nakedly partisan enough-like the charges against Tom Delay? What? This investigation definately needed to take place-it just should have taken place 3 years ago.Then it should have been followed up no matter how much Democrats squealed.Unfortunately the GOP leadership lacks the guts to do something like that-right now.

Desparate times bring despa... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Desparate times bring desparate measures. And by god these are desparate times for the ingnuts. The public will be pleased to see their Republican Congress at work on issues dear to the public.

That said sure he should be investigated.

I can't wait to watch the Daily Show on this one.
As I've dais many times, you folks are better than the funny papers.
Alfred E. Bush is probably grinning and laughing (heh heh heh)

The only problem is if it i... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

The only problem is if it is discovered that he destroyed documents that clearly undermine the myth that Bill Clinton's number one concern throughout his entire Presidency was Osama Bin Laden.

Then Hugh would be here shrieking; "Stop talking about Clinton! Leave him alone! He hasn't been President {sob} for six years! Why didn't Bush do anything about the Khobar Towers in 1996?! Why, wingnuts, why?! It was about sex! Sex! Sex! It's unconstitutional for Republicans to talk about Clinton! Yeaaaargh!"

That said, the GOP should have made a Hugh stink about this before now. That a former National Security Adviser would stuff irreplaceable classified documents down his pants and destroy them at home ... and that his former boss would laugh about it, should have had them unsheathing the swords a long time ago.

Wanderlust,, I thank you. ... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Wanderlust,, I thank you. "Against everything, but responsible for nothing" is exactly correct.

Wanderlust, excellent comme... (Below threshold)

Wanderlust, excellent comment.

Wanderlust: Great comment; ... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

Wanderlust: Great comment; nice work.

Ok to WL also! To "hughie":... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Ok to WL also! To "hughie": Hiliarous that the left has to have a socalled comic to get their word out. snicker snicker snicker.

opps,lets try that again-go... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

opps,lets try that again-good post Wanderlust.

I find it interesting that ... (Below threshold)
Bob Jones:

I find it interesting that all the press about Sandy Burgler does not call what he did "Stealing" or "Theft of Documents"

Sandy Burgler STOLE documents and purposely DESTROYED THEM in a lame attempt to cover his and Slick Willies ass.

Call a spade a spade. Sandy Burgler is a THIEF and should be a convicted FELON doing time for his actions.

All right Brian...Let's ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

All right Brian...Let's assume for a moment that this is a purely partisan move.So what?

So nothing. I don't have a problem with it. It's you Republicans who were complaining about the timing of the Foley story breaking, hence my attempt to recollect the Rep talking points from a couple of weeks ago. Go for it.

That it only happened 3 years ago and not 25-like the Bush DUI story from 2000?

Well, the Foley story was ongoing, but that didn't prevent Reps from crying foul. Oh, and how long before the "Clinton smokes pot" story came out did it happen? And it wasn't 25 years ago for Bush. As you may recall, he refused to confirm or deny that he'd used coke in the previous 10 years before the election.

I'm still waiting for this ... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

I'm still waiting for this so called "message" that lee speaks of the democrats having. You know, the one that we'll never knock you off of, the one that no one has ever heard because it is so totally sweet and awesome, and top-secret taboot.

Brian, there is a massive difference here, that being that the democrats lamely attempt to demonize the entire Republican party for the actions of one man, an attempt that is NOT playing well with the public I might add. The Republicans to my knowledge have not blamed anyone in the democratic party for burgler's actions but burgler.

Funny, there does not appea... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Funny, there does not appear to be a defense from those who normally would leap to help poor Sandy Berger. Who, inspite of his admission and being found guilty and having paid a fine, is somehow innocent of what Republicans accuse him of. Lee, why is seeking the truth about a Republican, even if it is not the truth so important, yet when the subject is changed to that of truth about a democrat it is not important?

Well it's about damned time... (Below threshold)

Well it's about damned time!

The Clintons appear to have a Teflon coating and that's just deplorable! They should be paying for their numerous misdeeds, sooner rather than later.

BTW: The Dems claim to have a plan, but they are curiously reticent about sharing it with the folks whose votes they so desire.

Zelsdorf, it is because lee... (Below threshold)
D-HOggs:

Zelsdorf, it is because lee and his ilk have an entirely different definition of truth. Truth is not defined by them in it's classical meaning, instead, "truth" to them is whatever fits their agenda. lee or hugh or one of those "truthers" will say "na-uh, thats what you guys do, I can't hear you, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah (fingers in ears)" wait for it, 3...2...1...

I agree, it's terrible timi... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

I agree, it's terrible timing. It should have been started six months ago. Along with Sock's they should have indicted 25-30 democrats on charges of treason in time of war. Providing aide and comfort to the terrorists has killed 75% of the soldiers that have died in Iraq, and thousands of Iraqi's. Democrats have blood of Americans on their hands by the bucket full. Evidently they are trying to break the record on the number of people they got killed unneccessarly in Vietnam, and the slaughter when they cut and ran. Democrats simply cannot be trusted with national security information, they will sell it for money, or leak it for political purposes. Either way, the result is 'death of Americans".

So will the commission will... (Below threshold)
Mike:

So will the commission will be seeking a warrant to get into Sandy's pants ?

Brian, there is a massiv... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian, there is a massive difference here, that being that the democrats lamely attempt to demonize the entire Republican party for the actions of one man,

The "entire Republican party"? How about just those involved? Is that OK?

an attempt that is NOT playing well with the public I might add.

Actually, it's playing quite well.

I'm still waiting for th... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I'm still waiting for this so called "message" that lee speaks of the democrats having.

Apparently you don't read much.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/03/real_security_t.php

Funny, there does not ap... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Funny, there does not appear to be a defense from those who normally would leap to help poor Sandy Berger.
...
Zelsdorf, it is because lee and his ilk have an entirely different definition of truth.

Hilarious. No Dems have posted a defense of Berger, yet you kind of created this phantom Dem who supports him so that you can rag on Dems some more. If you need your "bash Dems" fix, perhaps you should try other threads.

"Let's assume for a mome... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Let's assume for a moment that this is a purely partisan move.So what? After all the purely partisan cheap shots and dirty tricks the Democrats have pulled off in recent years what possible grounds could Democrats have to object to this tactic?"

Absolutely none. That's the point. It's politics - so when the Foley scandal hit and the Republicans whinned for a good solid week that it was a conspiracy it really, really made you guys look like *sshats.

Don't believe me? Check the recent polls...

We will check the poll resu... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

We will check the poll results on November 8th, Lee. The last important poll taken re-elected George W. Bush. You can propagandize any amout of literature you like, but if you think I am going to vote for a idiot democrat because of Foley, that being I live in California he he represents a district in Florida, you are the idiot I believe you to be, Lee. That will be true across the country. I wonder if Pelosi shares Reid's connection to organized crime. I know Pelosi said it was about the children. That is why she stood next to a leader of NAMBLA at a parade in San Francisco. It is about the children for them also. Besides, when is talking about sex between concenting adults illegal? 16 is the age of concent in Washington DC. Right or wrong, that is the law you liberals want.

For those of you who don't ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

For those of you who don't want to waste time looking at the "democrat" plan that Brian linked to above, I'll save you the time by summarizing it here:

-----------------------------------------------
21st Century Millitary: Empty Rhetoric, Promises that are 100% contrary to the history of their party, Empty Rhetoric, create new and better ways for lawyers to get rich. Empty rhetoric.

War on Terror: Empty Rhetoric, Promises that only a intellectual retard would believe, Promises to do impossible things, Empty Rhetoric.

Homeland Security: Empty Rhetoric, Waste billions upon billions of tax dollars on totally useless projects that will do nothing except create more government jobs for worthless people, Empty rhetoric, create new and better ways for lawyers to get rich. Empty rhetoric

Iraq: Let the democrat's terrorist allies win.

Energy Independence: Empty rhetoric, Cause the price of energy to rise so high that no one will be able to drive or heat their homes, or use electricity anymore, empty rhetoric, use our tax dollars to subsidize schemes that would fail in a free market, Empty rhetoric.
---------------------------------------------

Yup that'll sway voters, after all a quarter of people are intellectually retarded.

Brian&Lee:My complaint(s) w... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

Brian&Lee:My complaint(s) with the the Foley story were that the media sat on the IMs for several months for their partisan purposes.Then they and their Democrat allies lied by falsely implying that there were no differences between IMs and emails,and that the GOP leadership knew of both.I think tactics like this are bad,mmmkay? If you don't-well,why would you complain that Bush "lied" to convince the public to support the invasion of Iraq? Or that they went after Valery Plame? Or how about the Swift Boat Vets? Just politics,right? You may find this OK but most Democrats went bonkers-remember? Bill Clinton's pot use came out well before election day-are you saying no one should ever investigate the background of presidential candidates? The GWB cocaine story was also out well before election day-no complaints from me there.You apparantly don't understand the objection Republicans have with these stories-i.e. they are charges deliberately made to mislead with deliberately insufficient time for a GOP response.

Xennady, none of your point... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Xennady, none of your points about the Foley story are accurate. The IMs came to light only after the story about the emails. No one "sat on the IMs for months". I don't know what "lied by falsely implying that there were no differences between IMs and emails" means. (Although we could discuss "lied by falsely implying that the Democratics knew about the emails too!") Show me one Democrat who has said that the Republican leadership knew about the IMs. Mmmkay?

are you saying no one should ever investigate the background of presidential candidates?

I said no such thing. I was responding to a poster who claimed that Bush's coke use was a false issue because it (inaccurately) was 25 years ago. To counter that suggestion, I pointed out that a) Reps used the same issue on Clinton, and b) it wasn't 25 years ago. How you turned that into "no one should ever investigate the background of presidential candidates" is lost on me.

they are charges deliberately made to mislead with deliberately insufficient time for a GOP response.

Tell that to Hastert. He could have dealt with this years ago, at a time of his choosing. And where does it say that the revelation of felonies (or even political wranglings, for that matter) require providing the other side sufficient time for a response?

How much You wanna bet the ... (Below threshold)
914:

How much You wanna bet the document Sandra dee Burglar confiscated from the archive's said something to the effect of: Al Quaeda determined to strike WTC, Pentagon and Whitehouse.. stop...Method? using airliners..stop...Do not tell next administration..stop...Remove all valuables from Whitehouse..stop...Where baggy pants..stop...Blame it all on Bush..End message.

Zelda the Nazi wannabe:... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Zelda the Nazi wannabe:

We will check the poll results on November 8th, Lee

Uhm OK Zelda, but pardon me if I check them periodically before then.

The last important poll taken re-elected George W. Bush. You can propagandize any amout of literature you like, but if you think I am going to vote for a idiot democrat because of Foley, that being I live in California he he represents a district in Florida, you are the idiot I believe you to be, Lee. That will be true across the country.

You seem to not understand the Foley issues and their impact on voters, (and apparently don't believe what the polls say unless they support your position) but who am I to correct you. Play on, Zelda.

I wonder if Pelosi shares Reid's connection to organized crime.

Glad to hear your mind is still alert, despite the medications - that's an excellent sign, Zelda - but there are no idications that Pelosi is involved with organized crime - despite your "wonderings".

Can I try that tact out? Hmmm... I wonder if Hastert knew about Foley's follies long before the story broke last week.

How'd i do?

I know Pelosi said it was about the children. That is why she stood next to a leader of NAMBLA at a parade in San Francisco.

Aww, you got that one wrong too, but again, I am not worthy enough to correct you - so lie on my little nazi buddy - (or look up the truth, correct yourself, and we'll talk).

It is about the children for them also. Besides, when is talking about sex between concenting adults illegal? 16 is the age of concent in Washington DC. Right or wrong, that is the law you liberals want.

Oh, I see - you're back to Foley again. Well, the age of consent in the state where the under-aged child lies is a factor, but also - as I understand it - the Federal laws which Foley helped pass override the state age of consent laws.

More important is the organized coverup of Foley's sexual predatation by the Republican leadership that has been underway for several years. Oh, I see - you forgot to mention that - so it must be irrelevant.

Try increasing your medication, Zelda. You're slipping...

Overall, Zelda, - you struck out on every count - but you get points from the other conservative liars for style.

Wdo you think Republicans w... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Wdo you think Republicans will call for Bob Ney to resign from the House. he is to be sentenced tomorrow bt has yet to resign.
Hmmmm......how about ot wingnuts. What should he do?

It must be awful to feel smugly morally superior to the rst of us. What a burden you loons carry.

Brian:Did you read what I a... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

Brian:Did you read what I actually wrote? Democrats are deliberately pretending there is no difference between the emails and IMs-they don't need to explicitly say the GOP knew about the IMs-they just imply that they did-without saying so.Hence they can say they aren't lying.Neat,huh? In fact it's pretty slick-just like all the Clinton lies.At least they haven't started arguing about the exact meaning of "is"- yet anyway.And I will give you an example: Patty Wetterling in Minnesota is running an ad claimimg the GOP covered up sexual abuse by Foley.The emails were apparantly widely known-by the FBI,Fox,Hastert,and the ST Petersburg Times(I think)-and not considered newsworthy or criminal.The IMs-which caused Foley to resign-were uncovered a few months ago by ABC and held back until recently.Got that? Hastert did deal with this years ago-and the problems with Foley and this page stopped.Sorry-none of YOUR points about Foley are accurate.What poster claimed the Bush coke story was too old? I certainly didn't.When you quote my post why don't you respond to me,mmmkay? In any case Clinton had plenty of time to respond to the pot story-which was part of my point.Bush-for example-did not,at least in the DUI story.I make no claim it is written somewhere that political opponents should play nice.Democrats seem think,though,that it IS written somewhere-notice how they went nuts after the Swift Boat ads came out,etc.Why is that Brian? Why do Democrats think the Swift Boats ads were so terrible and unfair-but Foleygate just peachy?

Did you read what I actu... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Did you read what I actually wrote?

Yes. You wrote: "`the media sat on the IMs for several months". That is patently false. The IMs were given to news agencies only once the email story broke. That day, and not before. If you're going to claim otherwise, cite your source.

they just imply that they did-without saying so

Oh, you must be talking about the Reps implying -- without saying so -- that Dems knew about this all along and said nothing.

The IMs-which caused Foley to resign-were uncovered a few months ago by ABC and held back until recently.Got that?

You know, I'm getting really tired of correcting you. You just keep stating falsehoods without even trying to back them up. Let's try this one more time. The emails were reported on a Thursday. There was no mention of the IMs. Once the story hit the news, pages came forward with the IMs. The next day, Friday, was the first time the IMs were reported. Got that?

Sorry-none of YOUR points about Foley are accurate.

Please take your fingers out of your ears, and stop saying "la-la-la-la".

What poster claimed the Bush coke story was too old? I certainly didn't.

Well, let's see. You said:

After all the purely partisan cheap shots and dirty tricks the Democrats have pulled off in recent years what possible grounds could Democrats have to object to this tactic? That ... it only happened 3 years ago and not 25-like the Bush DUI story from 2000?

I'll let your sarcasm speak for itself.

By the way, what poster said, "no one should ever investigate the background of presidential candidates?" I certainly didn't.

When you quote my post why don't you respond to me,mmmkay?

Actually, it turns out I did. I just didn't bother to scroll back to see who made that comment, which I guess you didn't recognize yourself. Are there two of you? I seem to remember you actually making some reasonable points in other threads. Not here, though.

I make no claim it is written somewhere that political opponents should play nice.Democrats seem think,though,that it IS written somewhere

Now you're meandering. You first stated that it was mean for Dems to not give Reps time to respond. Now you're trying to support that position by expanding that to "playing nice". Let's stay on topic, mmmkay?

Why do Democrats think the Swift Boats ads were so terrible and unfair-but Foleygate just peachy?

Well, because the former were proven lies, and the latter is a proven truth. Doesn't seem so complicated to me.

OK, now run along there, children.

Memo: to all the the leftwi... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Memo: to all the the leftwing moonbats that post here (and everyone knows who they are), I may be the dumbest uglist asshole rightwinger here but that still puts me so far ahead of you that you would have to walk to the moon and back to be even on the same mental level.

"Well because the former... (Below threshold)
914:

"Well because the former were proven lies, and the latter is a proven truth. Doesnt seem so complicated to me."

Like hell! Strike that and reverse it..Now Your making sense.

The only thing Democrats st... (Below threshold)

The only thing Democrats stand for are leaks they perceive as helping them.

Plamegate - bad leak! Not because it harmed national security (heh, it didn't) but because it MAKES BUSH LOOK BAD! That worked out really well for them, didn't it.

NSA wiretap/datamining/SWIFT program - good leak! Sure it helped destroy great anti-terror programs, but that is a small price to pay because it MAKES BUSH LOOK BAD!

Mark Foley - good leak!
After all, no one cares about sexual ethics more than Democrats!

A "leak" implies someone wa... (Below threshold)
Brian:

A "leak" implies someone was intentionally and unsuccessfully trying to keep it quiet.

Mark Foley - good leak!

So who was it that was intentionally trying to keep this quiet before it "leaked"?

Brian:What's the matter Bri... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

Brian:What's the matter Brian? Got under your thin Democrat skin a bit? Go visit Gatewaypundit.com and scroll down.One the stories linked to by Mr.Gatewaypundit-from CNN-details how GOP leaders flat out accuse Democrats of holding back on this story for their partisan gain.Let me repeat:GOP leaders explicitly accused Democrats-nothing implied.Another notes how this story was given to the St Petersburg Times months ago.So how is that not sitting on the story-even if the IMs didn't come to light until just this second? And I don't believe that for a minute.You can if you want.I never made a comment about Bill Clinton and his pot use-not in this thread or any other.You claim I did-find it and quote it.Why would you object to the Clinton pot story unless you objected to investigating the background of presidential candidates-now that you mention it? Was it too mean? When I originally wrote that "tactics like this were bad" I thought it was obvious that it was nothing but my personal opinion that such tactics should not be used.How the heck could you miss that? You say the GOP is just whining.Fine-but why aren't Democrats just whining when they complain about Plamegate,etc? That was my main point-if every tactic is permissible then Democrats have no right and no reason to object to ANYTHING the GOP has ever done.And yet still they whine-incessantly.I sent money to the Swift Boat Vets and bought their book.You criticize me for not citing sources-cite a source showing that their charges were refuted.Funny how a media that can dig up 25 year old DUIs and 3 year old IMs can't come up with any kind of rebuttal in the several months prior to the election in which the Swift Boat story was out there,isn't it? I would think they would have done a much better job of it-if they could have.Heck,I would think Kerry would have been able to refute them-publicly,immediately and loudly.Instead he hid from the press for over a month-but I'm meandering again aren't I? Good night kids!

Brian:What's the matter ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian:What's the matter Brian? Got under your thin Democrat skin a bit?

Not at all. I can respond to your speculation and unsubstatiated ramblings, and do it with cited facts, all day. I just find it increasingly boring.

Let me repeat:GOP leaders explicitly accused Democrats-nothing implied.

Gee, what a shock. GOP leaders hurling unsubstatiated accusations at Democrats. Go see what happened when Patrick McHenry was pressed to provide any evidence of this desperate distraction.

Another notes how this story was given to the St Petersburg Times months ago.So how is that not sitting on the story-even if the IMs didn't come to light until just this second?

What's the matter? Are you pretending to not know the difference between emails and IMs?

And I don't believe that for a minute.

I'm not surprised. Substantiated facts don't seem to be your strong point.

I never made a comment about Bill Clinton and his pot use-not in this thread or any other.

I never said you did. You made a comment about Bush's drug use being an issue. I countered with a point about the right making Clinton's drug use an issue.

You claim I did

No I didn't.

Why would you object to the Clinton pot story

I didn't object to it.

unless you objected to investigating the background of presidential candidates-now that you mention it?

I didn't mention it. You did.

You say the GOP is just whining.

Another thing I never said.

Anything else you want to flat out lie that I said, just so you can respond to it?

if every tactic is permissible then Democrats have no right and no reason to object to ANYTHING the GOP has ever done.

All I object to are lies. The truth is always fair game.

cite a source showing that their charges were refuted.

Here's one of many. (Ever heard of Google?) But what's the point? You're just going to go through the arguments and call them lies, no matter what I point you to.

Funny how a media can't come up with any kind of rebuttal in the several months prior to the election in which the Swift Boat story was out there,isn't it?

They did. But you obviously didn't care to pay attention.

I would think they would have done a much better job of it-if they could have.

Yes, the feckless media usually does a poor job of investigating the truth, choosing instead to report "he said, she said".

Heck,I would think Kerry would have been able to refute them-publicly,immediately and loudly.Instead he hid from the press for over a month

Yes, I agree that Kerry screwed up by not responding more forcefully.

but I'm meandering again aren't I?

I'm used to it.

Good night kids!

Sweet dreams.

Brian:Whee! I love smacking... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

Brian:Whee! I love smacking down moonbats.I don't find it boring-especially you,Brian.Amusingly pathetic,mainly.Let me begin. You wrote:"you must be talking about the Reps implying-without saying so-that Dems knew about this all along and said nothing".In response I provided you with a citation demonstrating that GOP leaders had in fact flat out accused Democrats of pre-knowledge of this story.You then provide a link about some congressman-whom I had never heard of-who managed to look stupid on television.Well-so what? Are you really dense enough think that that refuted what I actually wrote? I suppose you wanted me to find a link for you listing the evidence that the Foley story was an orchestrated political hit job.Well doing research for you has gotten boring-go visit Gatewaypundit and do your own research.To be continued...

Part 2:You said earlier the... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

Part 2:You said earlier the emails were what got the story going.Since the St Petersburg Times had them for months either 1)the media sat on the story for months proving me correct-or 2)the emails were not what got the story going-also proving me correct.I refuse to believe that you are so dense that you cannot see this.You wrote earlier "I just didn't bother to scroll back to see who made that comment which I guess you didn't recognize yourself".Now you say you never accused me of commenting about Clinton's drug usage.What the heck does that quote above mean then? Were you deliberately trying to come up with nonsensical gibberish for some crazy moonbat reason? I brought up the Bush DUI-not the cocaine story-for reasons not intrinsic to the story itself.I didn't object to investigating either,just the timing of the DUI story's publication.Bill Clinton is irrelevant to this."How long before the Clinton smokes pot story came out did it happen?" I admit that what you wrote doesn't make much sense but it implied to me that you objected to investigating Clinton due to the passage of time in this matter.I regret that you were unclear in your writing.When I wrote that you said the GOP was just whining I was paraphrasing from the overall tenor of your remarks.Once again I refuse to belief that you cannot see this.Or have you decided that the GOP is not whining and they do-in fact-have a genuine case against the conduct of the Democrats?To be continued...

Part 3:I commend you for ob... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

Part 3:I commend you for objecting to lies.You wrote that the media did rebut the Swifties prior to the election.If so, I can't believe you provided the link you did as an example of such a rebuttal-did you read it? Somebody I've never heard of didn't like what Susan Estrich wrote and commented on it.I would bet a lot of money that Susan Estrich wouldn't think much of the Swift Boat Vets.And-shocking-she didn't.If that was the best you could come up with to prove the Swifties were proven liars-well,you didn't.But don't feel bad-John Kerry had much more motivation to refute them and he couldn't either.And he was actually in Vietnam with them-in case you haven't heard about that! Now ask yourself this Brian:1)Why did you fail to quickly find a good hard-hitting piece crushing the Swift Boaters and their really mean accusations and 2) Why did Kerry fail to respond loudly,forcefully and immediately to the charges-assuming they were false? I know! I know! They WEREN'T false! Thanks for playing Brian! Bye!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy