« Hannity and the Homeless | Main | Star Tripping »

No laughing matter

I pride myself on my sense of humor. I can find the absurd in most any situation, and often have to explain why I'm laughing to people. And there are very few subjects I find simply not funny. It's an odd thing about me, but I rather like it.

That's why I was a little disappointed when my colleague, Lorie Byrd, posted a link to some song parodies inspired by Sandy Berger's little misadventure in the National Archives.

Yeah, they're clever and witty. One might even say inspired and insightful. But I just can't bring myself to laugh at Sandy Berger's crimes.

Yeah. Crimes. High crimes. The kind that most people would spend many years turning big ones into small ones.

Let's take a good, hard look at just what he did. The Wall Street Journal did an exceptional job last week, but let's add a few more elements of context.

Berger's stated purpose for visiting the National Archives was to prepare for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. He was supposed to be reviewing documents from his tenure as President Clinton's National Security Advisor to refresh his memory of events leading up to the single greatest attack on American soil. And instead of that, he abused and violated his security clearance -- the written statement of trust in his honesty, fidelity, loyalty, honor, and discretion given to him by our government -- to steal countless documents, many of them not properly inventoried so we may never know what he took.

And this was done while he was "preparing" his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. He deprived that Commission of access to many documents that might have been critical to their analysis of just what happened that Tuesday morning, and what led up to it. Who knows what was in those papers? We never will.

And let us not forget that one of the major planks that the Democrats ran on when they retook both Houses of Congress was a full implementation of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. Would those recommendations have been different, had they had access to the documents that Berger stole and destroyed? We will never know.

The more I learn about Sandy Berger, the more my loathing of this despicable human being increases. For example, I did not know about his fining for potential conflict of interest in a stock deal. Nor did I know that he was informed that the Chinese had stolen top-secret designs for nuclear weapons from us, but sat on the information for 15 months.

(The satirist in me at this point wants to concoct a long, satirical piece likening Berger's pants to the Bermuda Triangle, where papers disappear -- be they stock certificates, reports on Chinese nuclear espionage, or reports on terrorist attacks -- but I'm suppressing that part.)

The Constitution has a very, very high standard for the charge of treason. From Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

That's a hell of a tough standard. Not many would argue that Berger's actions met that standard. Hell, I myself argued back in October that it didn't.

But I find myself reconsidering. By hampering the investigation of the 9/11 Committee, it can be argued that Berger did, indeed, indirectly give "Aid and Comfort" to the enemy by weakening our ability to fight back. The "two Witnesses" are readily available from the National Archives, and I'm quite certain that finding a 9/11 Commissioner or two to testify to the importance of their having been given all the documents they sought.

Right now Scooter Libby is facing trial for his role in the Valerie Plame affair. If convicted of all charges (all related to "lying about how he told the truth about a liar"), he could face a maximum of $1,250,000 in fines and 30 years in jail.

In contrast, Sandy Berger was fined $50,000, sentenced to 100 hours of community service 2 years of probation, and his security clearance was revoked for three years. He can re-apply for it after September 8, 2008. The timing of that amazes me -- it's highly unlikely the Bush administration would offer him any job, and it expires just in time to hold yet another top position in a potential Democratic presidency.

I have no idea why Berger was treated with such kid gloves. I am a firm believer in the law, and in its rigorous enforcement. I bring up Libby's case merely as a point of contrast, not to be taken as a call for leniency in his behalf. (Although his attorney very well could make such a case based on Berger, and it could work.) I am disgusted and appalled with the way his high crimes were handled.

Under another part of our Constitution (The Fifth Amendment), Berger is immune from being tried again on these charges. It is a closed matter, not subject to any further review or legal action. But as I pointed out, he will be free to seek his security clearance and high office after September 8, 2008, when all the penalties for his conviction will have been fulfilled.

We must not allow ourselves to forget just what he did, and never again should this nation place any faith and trust in this despicable traitor. The only court left where we can seek justice against him is that of public opinion, and that is one fight we can not yield.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference No laughing matter:

» Joust The Facts linked with The Tale Of Sandy's Pants

Comments (49)

Congratulations jay. You've... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Congratulations jay. You've become a combination of what I call the Barbara Walters and Larry King personaity. You and the other authors on this site now do puff pieces on personalities ad infinitum.

Nary a word anymore (for obvious reasons) about the war the right loves to love. Nothing of substance since the democrats have actually begun to chnage some things in Washington. Just a rehash of the same old stale stories about Burger and other personality pieces.

Yawn.

Hugh, please be patient. I... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Hugh, please be patient. I am sure Jay will start a thread in the near future for which your comment may actually have some relevance.

Democrats have more than... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Democrats have more than proven that there exists no place or position of power that they will not fiend for , disgrace , corrupt and destroy any respect for held previously. Todays Judges , juries , district Attorneys , medical examiners , Presidents, Senators down to the common citizen can no longer be trusted to do only that which is expected of them ,with honesty and integrity so long as they practice the Democrat Religion.

When called on to save the very life and existence of the democrat party as we have seen in the past six years and counting they have and will continue to engage in this perpetual fraud of "SAY ANYTHING" AND "DO WHAT EVER IT TAKES" to gain what they have been denied in the past at the ballot box by way of honest elections. This past Nov 7 was and example and result of years of blatant lies , Corrupt officials covering up others corruption and a no longer hidden or even disputable liberal bias in the MSM.

Today they willfully ignor Democrat corruption while they actively engage in perpetuating false accustions and smears against those opponents as long as it takes to insure a democrat victory. Not even immune to these shameless acts of cowardice are the very members of the same Democrat Religion for simply not being evil enough or someone dispaying the prospect of being more gutless and shamelessly loyal to the party.

There no longer exists such a thing as well informed voters or an honest elections with one Democrat Party and the well over 90% democrat voting/proven liberal biased MSM engage in mass election fraud and disinformation now can there?

Is that the same Hugh who h... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Is that the same Hugh who had a Wizbang Blue submission where he stated:
I'm making a New Years resolution. I will only engage in debate from now on. I will not call any one name(s), nor will I be sarcastic or caustic.

I guess we won't be taking Hugh at his word anymore, he has proven it is worthless.


John , did ya really hon... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

John , did ya really honestly think he was worthy of being taken at his word? lol

"he has proven it is worthless"

Over and over and over again like his party's leadership. Democrats must persuade and convince through deceit and disinformation. They can never win by just being who they are because they can't even admit nor show the people what and who they truely are. It's even to disgusting for them.

But I just can't bring m... (Below threshold)
wolfwalker:

But I just can't bring myself to laugh at Sandy Berger's crimes.

As I see it, the song parodies written by Steyn and others aren't laughing at Berger. They're mocking the Establishment's reaction to Berger. Remember the old saw "if I didn't laugh I'd have to cry"?

Berger himself deserves to be executed. Maybe he isn't quite guilty of treason, but he's certainly guilty of committing major crimes under cover of authority. I've always considered that a crash-and-burn crime, deserving of the ultimate penalty.

"Berger himself deserves to... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"Berger himself deserves to be executed."

Oh and so many other more offensive cowardly calculating Rats. This guy is guilty and one of the most dumb of the Dimms. There are many much more dangerous than him and growing.

The death penalty for treas... (Below threshold)
LJD:

The death penalty for treason may be a bit severe. But, couldn't we torture him to determine the nature of the information he stole? Then somebody could do a parody about his fatass on a waterboard.

"I have no idea why Berg... (Below threshold)
cmd:

"I have no idea why Berger was treated with such kid gloves."

Of course you do, Jay.

He's a Democrat. He can do anything. Democrats can be Klansmen, murderers or rapists, and still useful idiots like Hugh get down on their knees to worship them. What disgusts me - even more, I think, than the fact that Bush didn't have the balls to have this traitor executed - is that we, the loyal base of the GOP, will let this slide. We'll let Libby be railroaded while Berger skips away happily, and we'll still vote for these moral cripples. If we put half as much energy into hamstringing the Washington bastards, deluging their offices with calls, letters and faxes all screaming about Berger, don't you think we'd have seen some action?

Democrats agitate. They scream. They fling their feces around like howler monkeys. And the politicians listen. Look at Mama Sheehan browbeating Rahm Emanuel. Look at Dick Durbin crawling to the Koz Kiddiez. Imagine what we could accomplish if we were as vocal and as willing to punish our reps rather than shrugging our shoulders and chuckling "oh, those libs - there they go being traitors again, heh, heh."

Oh, and Hugh - the post is about Sandy Berger, not the war. I can imagine that since you lefties can almost taste the defeat you've been longing for since 9/12, you would be anxious to crow. But try a simple experiment, assjack - read what Jay wrote about what Berger has done. Read what Libby is accused to have done. And explain why one is being prosecuted and one is skating.

That is, if you have any intellectual honesty and aren't just a sorry excuse for a troll.

Sandy Burglar sorta makes o... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Sandy Burglar sorta makes one wish for the good ole days when document destruction was confined to White House premises, and , after the deed, one goes on to become a hero in the eyes of some factions and a star reporter for a "fair and balanced" news network..

John:I'm sorry you... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

John:

I'm sorry you can't see the difference between legitimate criticism and sarcasm. My point was clear as a bell. These threads have taken a turn torwards pretty silly pieces about Burger, Pelosi and Boxer et al. My opinion is that's because the right has nothing useful to talk about with regard to Iraq and the dems, though it is early, have done some positive things in Congress.

My resolution is till firmly in place.

All one of the writers has to do is mention Berger's name and the more rabid folks on the right smell blood. See above posts. Rob LA is a prime example of one who never has anything substantive to say about anything yet feeds off these kinds of personality puff pieces. What's the point? This issue has been beaten to death over and over and over and over and over and over again and again and again.

I hope I'm wrong about my observation and we see some threads with some "meat" in them.

H

Hugh, don't even try to wea... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Hugh, don't even try to weasel this one. You stated you would only engage in debate. Now we see you resorting to ad hominem less than a month after making that statement.

You continue to defelct any possible debate over the nature and results of Sandy Berger's actions. This isn't even a partisan issue, the Republicans have proven pretty meek in rolling over and letting him get away with it, just as Democrats like yourself wish it swept under the rug.

Now, if you don't like the pieces postwed on individuals and their actions, if you were honest about your resolution you simply would not post in these threads. Instead, you once more attempt to divert and distract, so apprently even you recognize his actions are indefensible, but you can't quite bring yourself to criticize someone ostenisbly on your side of the political fence.

Now, either back up, apologize for your behavior, and either contribute to a debate (counterpoints, any? Was Sandy right in what he did? Is it possible his actions were harmless? How can we know?) or by continuing to post and respond as you have, proving that your word is meaningless and you will simply play "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" games to avoid actually having to acknowledge it.


I hope I'm wr... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:

I hope I'm wrong about my observation and we see some threads with some "meat" in them

I see the Burger fiasco as a very legitimate argument about Democrats and the war in Iraq. The American people were denied the right to know the real truth during the 9/11 Commission about the led up to that attack. This is about complicity of Democrats as a whole.

If they are all willing to turn the blind eye to shielding whatever vital information was out there to protect the "party", then it's easy to challenge the Democrat's and the left's motivation about the misrepresentation of the Iraq war.

The only difference is Democrats can't shred every comment they made claiming Saddam's Iraq was a threat prior to the war. They simply have to rely on the loyal participation of their constituency to stick their fingers in their eyes, slam their eyes shut and scream, LA, LA, LA,LA, LA......


JJinteresting that... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

JJ

interesting that you said, "The only difference is Democrats can't shred every comment they made..."

Interesting that you should mention "shredding."

Could it be that the docs that Ollie shredded, right in the Whute House, could well have been grounds for an impeachment about which we will never know?

As far as I can tell, no one has made a hero of Berger, nor had him appear before a Congressional Committe in his Marine uniform to dazzle the viewer; no Democrats have become eager listeners to his daily talk-radio show nor have any in the "liberal" MSM given him a column to write, not to mentioon that none of the "liberal" networks has given him a role as a commentator and occasional show of his own.

Haven't heard either, that Berger has any plans to seek his party's endorsement for a run for a Senate seat or that his party is encouraging him to do so.

When Michael Moore(on) call... (Below threshold)
arcman:

When Michael Moore(on) called the American people idiots, there was outrage by some. Unfortunately when you look at the last election results, one almost has to conclude that he is right. Bergler gets a free pass, in time for a Hilary presidency, and we get a congress with Pelosi, Reed, Kennedy, Conyers, and Murtha, among others in charge. Pretty d*** stupid if you ask me.

Puke, for your comparison t... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Puke, for your comparison to make any sense, other than more spin and diversion ("Look, what a Repub did twenty years ago! That has to be more relevant than anything happening in this century!"), you must be implying that Berger was working an authorized classified operation.

Which is an interesting theory without a shred of evidence, apart from the remarkable silence on the matter from both Dems and Repubs on the matter.

No, Irv-man, the point is t... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

No, Irv-man, the point is that there is not much difference between Democratic and Rerpublican reaction.

In either situation, history, if nothing else, has been denied a far clearer perception of what may have been going on.

As to "working an authorized classified operation." did you mean to make the implication that the difference between North & Berger is that, a classified operation, and that that puts one action in a totally different light from the other?

As to your z"diversion" allegation, the Wizchoir are past masters every time a contrarian posts about anything Bush. You mean to tell me that you are oblivious to the endless dredging of and comparisons with Clinton, with many frequently going back 30 years to Carter?


Berger was caught, tried, c... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Berger was caught, tried, convicted and punished. Unfortunately for the most bloodthirsty among you, his was not quite a serious offense to justify execution. Threads like this one are just more red meat for the "loyal base of the GOP" like cmd claims to be. The WSJ piece concludes that we can only guess, and probably will never know, the truth regarding Berger and the documents. His motive, as well, is "shrouded in mystery". Perfect. A blank canvas, which is soon filled with the twisted projections of the paranoid fringe, with no real facts cluttering up their masterpiece.

They get all lathered up over a years-old scandal that has played itself out. Maybe the present is just a little too painful?

Interesting that ... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Interesting that you should mention "shredding

Puke, nice deflection. Someday when a subject or thread allows we can discuss Oliver North and Iran Contra. That was during my "era" in the military and I personally know people who were fighting the communist insurgency in Central America. Those with boots on the ground were cut off by Democrats AGAIN.

3000 Americans murdered in a single day and Democrats attempts to hide their real complacency is about outrageous as it gets. Of course Democrats can see the comparison in the two, because it's the most simplistic manner in which to frame the debate.

Nice try.....

Gotta run, be back later.....

Hugh, Burglar is t... (Below threshold)
robert the original:

Hugh,

Burglar is the subject of a new report released within the last several days, about an important subject. You might have noticed that Jay's bit was against puff if anything, and puts his actions in context. The idea that the 911 Commission could have been put off track by this, and is now used as gospel by Pelosi, is current, right on point, and one not made by others that I have noticed. You may not like it, but it is not puff.

But about the trend to withhold sarcasm, I have a few words.

I still more highly regard the well thought out points and clear logic. But sarcasm and well-formed insults are a trademark of some of our most famous, and an indication of a refined mind. Shaw, Churchill, Dole and most of our best comedians are positively great at it.

There is zero chance that Churchill or Shaw, if blogging today, would let this Burglar idiocy pass without a crack or two, neither having the constitution to suffer those vapid and lame excuses.

Hitchens, when asked by Galloway to forego a topic in an upcoming debate responded: "I shall have nothing more to say on the matter until I have had the opportunity to review your prison diaries". (This may not be an exact quote).

We can get all high and mighty and complain about Trump and Rosie, but the truth is we love it and wish they would do it better.

Churchill: "I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly".

Also,

Lady Nancy Astor: Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea.
Churchill: Nancy, if I were your husband, I'd drink it."

Do you see? There is nothing so exquisite as a well-formed insult.

And while many here lately have gathered to lecture from the mountain of nice, I will remain true to the content rather than the form, and relish the sarcasm.

Here is an example from the minister of nice, Hugh.

In arguing a point about Hadifa recently, Hugh stated that the Marines' actions were in cold blood, or could have been. Well OK, the Marines were sitting in the vehicle when an IED struck, killing some on the left and wounding those on the right, and what followed was in cold blood? How could what followed have been in cold blood?

Do you see the point? It could have been wrong, it could even have been murder, but it could not possibly have been in cold blood. (By definition).

This is also fairly insulting to Marines, no matter how nicely it is put, but he supports the troops, I'll bet.

When challenged on the point, rather that defend the indefensible and vapid, Hugh retreated again to the moral high ground, put himself above everything again and refused to engage on the grounds of nice.

Me? I would rather have thoughtful and logical comments, and sarcasm, no matter the form rather than be reduced to the world of Miss America contestants who are known emit such utter nonsense as: "Why can't we all just be nice".

Perfect. A blank ... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Perfect. A blank canvas, which is soon filled with the twisted projections of the paranoid fringe

The perfect description of lefties, I couldn't have said it better.


Really? Could you be a litt... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Really? Could you be a little more vague?

John:1) Burger's ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

John:

1) Burger's behavior was unacceptable and he should have been prosecuted. End of case. Over. Finished. Done with. It's a pretty gigantice leap to assume he took information that the commission"could" otherwise have had. Jay's piece was a rehash of how much he detests Burger, ratched up a notch. My point about the reponse is evident from the posts.

2) I stand by my points regarding both the puff pieces on personalities and my resolution.

Robert:

I liked what you said.

Lefties=blank canvass, what... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Lefties=blank canvass, what's so vague about it. It's clear as a bell.

The Dims. basic philosophy is really pretty much make-it-up-as-you-go, so you get caught time and again in screamingly hypocritical positions, chiefly because you often have no firm "positions."

As one of you lefties wrote, Repubs. made people feel "uncomfortable," thus Repubs. lost the election. If feeling unconfortable is the litmus test, then anything goes.

Rational, clear-thinkers have obvious concern about what Berger did, and it is not being paranoid to suspect that something nefarious happened, as it is axiomatic in life that if one intends to deceive, and takes clear actions to deceive, then there was something likely worth deceiving about.

I doubt he'd be stuffing his trousers and secreting evidence under a construction trailer over typos in one of his reports.

But your vacuous statements, lefties, that it doesn't matter, is not material/important/serious just betrays your failure to grasp any important, consistent principles in your muddled thinking.

So Hugh, we can expect you ... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

So Hugh, we can expect you to continue to disregard your given word.

You forget that reputation is not how you perceive yourself, but how you are perceived. Your word wasn't given to those you agree with, you have not insulted them in any way. Your word was given to those of us who may disagree with you on actual issues, and that is what you have broken.
You had the opportunity to rise above the common examples of your side here (not that there aren't some particularly nasty types on the middle and rightward sides of the fence here either, but the most egregious behavior comes solidly from the Left here), and instead you're digging in your heels.

Spinning the Sandy Berger case into "well, he's faced his trial and thats that" ignores the underpinning issues that Jay Tea raised, and your handwaving has done nothing whatsoever except demonstrate your committment to continuing to ignore and deflect criticism.

Mitchell wrote:"..... (Below threshold)
Robert the original:

Mitchell wrote:

"...it is axiomatic in life that if one intends to deceive, and takes clear actions to deceive, then there was something likely worth deceiving about".

This is an example, Hugh, of a well-formed logical argument.

Hugh wrote:

"It's a pretty gigantice leap to assume he took information that the commission'could' otherwise have had."

This is another example, Hugh, that you have missed, precisely, the point of the recent report which concluded exactly what you have termed a "gigantic leap".

Burglar might, of course, have risked prison to provide fuel for his fireplace.

Mindless, but nice.

Jay,I'm glad to see ... (Below threshold)

Jay,
I'm glad to see someone on the right willing to look into the details of 9/11. Just be careful of what you wish for.

What is it with wingnuts li... (Below threshold)
Cornwell:

What is it with wingnuts like the Wizzies being so obsessed with yesterday's news? I've asked this question here many times, and still no one can answer.

Mention Clinton or Berger, and the mouth foam begins and you guys lose all rational thoughts and start screaming and flailing like caged chimps. What does Berger have to do with anything that is happening today?

No wonder the American public sidelined you guys last Nov. and your failed policies.

John:I must admit ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

John:

I must admit to a certain gnashing of the teeth and instinct to retort when I read what you write. It seems to me your tendency is to come to a conclusion first and then find facts which you believe support it. Rest assured that though I do desire to have a reputation which is admirable, that reputation is neither advanced nor impugned by you. I have no interest in your opinion of my reputation, just as I have no interest in your reputation.

As to the issue at hand. My reading of Jay's piece is that he has detested, continues to detest and always will detest Burger. My response? That's old news. As to the new report. As I understand it it changes nothing. Mitchell would like us to believe that the report does make a "gigantic" leap to a conclusion that, at best, may or may not be true. I understand that. You want things to be a certain way (as do I) and you look through the prism of your beliefs and your bias (as do I).

I am not spinning Burger. In fact it is the right who are spinning Burger. He committed a crime. He was punished. My perspective is that the right really doesn't have much of substance to talk;k about these days. Hence, old news and bad personalities. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't really think I am.

In WizWorld, yesterday's ne... (Below threshold)
groucho:

In WizWorld, yesterday's news is infinitely preferable to the current scene. The past gives wings to unfettered flights of delusional fancy; a perfect world in which the evil Emperor Bill and his depraved minions will stop at nothing to...to do what, exactly? All the raging and ranting about past events, real or imagined, gives the Wizzers a common rallying point, a diversion from the dismal mess the house of Bush has visited upon America.

Yes, Sandy got away with it... (Below threshold)
NellE:

Yes, Sandy got away with it, so now shut up about it. Forget yesterday. Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
If Sandy gets his clearance back and goes back into the National Archives to stuff some of Bush and Cheney's memos about WMD, then we'll throw a hissy fit that won't end until there are books, movies, docu-dramas and websites detailing every unknown detail until your eyes roll back in your head and you admit that the traitor Berger took oil money from Bush and conservatism was invented by Satan.

Back in the real world, apparently we're going to be hearing the 9-11 Commission Report referenced for some time to come. So that we never forget how compromised it is by Sandy's secret paper caper, I recommend re-naming it the 9-11 No-Pants Commission Report.

They get all lathe... (Below threshold)
marc:
They get all lathered up over a years-old scandal that has played itself out. Maybe the present is just a little too painful? :: by groucho on January 15, 2007 10:58 AM ::
That scandal had its genesis a year ago in that your correct.

However with the new report just being released providing more detail into the case it makes it a current and legitimate issue to blog and comment about.

So it hasn't "played itself out" Asshat.

I must admit to a certai... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

I must admit to a certain gnashing of the teeth and instinct to retort when I read what you write. It seems to me your tendency is to come to a conclusion first and then find facts which you believe support it. Rest assured that though I do desire to have a reputation which is admirable, that reputation is neither advanced nor impugned by you.

And you still don't get it. How hard it must be for you to say "I was in error. I don't have anything to contribute to a discussion of the ramification of Sandy Berger's crime and punishment." If you had something besides "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain with papers stuffed in his pants, or the ridiculously light sentence he received with no appropriate response from either political party," you'd have provided it.

I bet you did have to restrain yourself, you made your promise in bad faith and never expected to be called on it.

"They get all lathered... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"They get all lathered up over a years-old scandal that has played itself out."

LOL. Poor pathetic turd polisher. The reason democrats cry like they do is because they can't deny the fact that 85% of felons vote for democrats.Or is it the fact that their leadership is made up of criminal frauds? They just hate it when the truth and facts smack them in the face and wake them from their dream world.

All the raging an... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
All the raging and ranting about past events, real or imagined

Translation: Nothing to see here, move along. We don't want all that "see, I told you so" stuff being said about our "party". If Berger felt that eliminating some archives was in the best interest of the "party", then as a loyal subject of said "party" so be it. I need to know nothing more.

By the powers invested in me, as grand puba, I declare....Novus Ordo Seclorum.....

And it is so.............

From this post forward as commanded by the Grand Puba all mention of Berger will be met with negative vibes of the universe. (Which in essence is really just silly lefty blather)

John:Now I underst... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

John:

Now I understand you. No. I have nothing of substance to debate about Burger as it has all been debated ad infinitum. I repeat, there is little of substance for the right to debate about so lets rehash the pld "bad" stuff about some dems.

I continue to stand by my original post (in good faith) and my reolution (in good faith) however. I care not a whit about your opinion of me.

New report? More detail? Wh... (Below threshold)
groucho:

New report? More detail? What is really new here, other than he MAY have done more than was first thought? Read the WSJ piece. Pretty vague.

I think Berger behaved criminally and I fully supported whatever punishment he got. I'm not defending the guy. You folks are just going to have to come to grips with the fact that he wasn't hanged. And it looks like there's not much chance of it happening in the future, especially if this is the extent of your NEW info on the case. We know he might have done something. We'll never really know, so lets pretend it's terrible, unimaginable, security threatening stuff, so we'll all feel better about our righteous indignation. It just seems kind of pointless when the new info is just a whole lot of maybe and might have. (optional slur omitted)

The new news is that Burgla... (Below threshold)
robert the original:

The new news is that Burglar had access to original documents for which there were no copies of any kind. If he had stolen the original constitution it would have been less serious because we know what is in it, at least those of us who are not liberal Supreme Court members.

You might recall that originally this event was cast as a misfiling. Clinton: "Oh that Sandy is so disorganized, you should see his desk, yuk, yuk". Only after videotape showing that was stuffing paper in his socks became available, did they go to the next explanation.

It was all copies he had, or documents that had been copied, we were told. Why would he risk prison to steal copies we all wondered? All very innocent, we were told; he just wanted to prepare for the hearings at home.

Now we learn that many of the documents were original, unique, and uncopied. We learn that he temporarily hid them in a construction site and took numerous cell phone breaks during which he required privacy - so much for the innocent Mr. Disorganized.

And now we know that some of what we took was irreplaceable and a loss of the permanent record.

This is news indeed, and new, so those who say this is a rehash are ignorant of the facts, can't read, or can't think.

How can it be that you are so uncurious as to what was stolen, and why?

The reason democrats cry... (Below threshold)
Fordrill:

The reason democrats cry like they do is because they can't deny the fact that 85% of felons vote for democrats.

Yeah, Rob. And 99% of pedophiles vote Republican, blah, blah. Try to find something truthful to say or shut your big gaping cake hole, loser. You're embarrassing yourself.

robert the original says:</... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

robert the original says:

"How can it be that you are so uncurious as to what was stolen, and why?"

Well Robert I got curioser and so I went and read the Committee Report, that is to say the Republican staff report. Perhaps you should too.

There is no conclusion that Mr Berger stole documents. What is being put out here by some of you comes from an Opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal (who's editorial board its own journalists disrespect) and Rep Davis. Of course he has no axe to grind.

As groucho said there is nothing new here except that he may have done something. Since Jay made the comparison to Libby, Libby "may" have committed a crime also. What say you about that?

H

There is no conclu... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
There is no conclusion that Mr Berger stole documents

Oh.......

Hugh wrote:"There ... (Below threshold)
robert the original:

Hugh wrote:

"There is no conclusion that Mr Berger stole documents".

GOOD THINKING HUGH, since he admitted to stuffing marked and numbered documents in his shorts and socks and hiding them under a construction trailer to be later destroyed. Maybe he didn't steal documents, ya think? The videotape lies!

I am so impressed that I have forwarded your ideas to the Anthropology Department at Cambridge with the thought that they can be compared to the prevailing theory that Cro-Magnon is extinct.

Sorry Joe, I didn't mean to... (Below threshold)
rober the original:

Sorry Joe, I didn't mean to walk on your stuff, I was writing when you posted.

Sorry Joe, I didn'... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Sorry Joe, I didn't mean to walk on your stuff, I was writing when you posted

Don't worry, you didn't walk over me, I was finished with my one word post.

I was going for the "dramatic pause" after my astonishment of the statement.

Your delivery after my "pause" was perfect timing.

Cheers.........

Ever feel like you're havin... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Ever feel like you're having to do the heavy lifting that Hugh, et al's logic professor didn't (provided they attended college, of course, which is not self-evident).

robert the original nails it. That Berger had access to, and likely modified or destroyed, original and/or un-copied documents destroys the publics' right to know what its government has done, and what failures led to 9/11, so that same won't be repeated.

God Hugh and puke are thick in the head.

"the reason democrats cry l... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"the reason democrats cry like they do is because they can't deny the fact that 85% of felons vote for democrats."


So Fordrill , what part of this is untrue?

So you proudly admit this as being true and fully embrace them with no tears shed. I apologize , I had no idea how proud you were of this fact.

Democrats have Sandy pa... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Democrats have Sandy pants working on the outside and Jamie Gorelick working on the inside. What kind of grades did Gorelick give her own incompetance as one who was directly responsible for 9/11 having happened?

Oh! she was on the panel/9-11 comission formed to assign blame and or recommendations? Amazing ! democrats see no conflicts of interest here. She after all has the same goal as most of the braindead trolls , secure some sort of "LEGACY" for the Big BJ at any costs.

robert the original nail... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

robert the original nails it. That Berger had access to, and likely modified or destroyed, original and/or un-copied documents destroys the publics' right to know what its government has done, and what failures led to 9/11, so that same won't be repeated.

Mitchell, it's worse than that.

The employees thought he MIGHT be stealing documents, so they copied them and numbered them and, lo and behold, he took them.

They then made copies of the originals AGAIN and placed them back and he stole THE SECOND COPIES as well.

So, he didn't just steal one report. He stole one report REPEATEDLY. He even KNEW that "somehow" it got replaced and, so, he STOLE IT AGAIN.
-=Mike

Media bias ?Which ... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Media bias ?

Which generated more media frenzy:

Sandy Berger, former National Security Advisor, stealing classified documents.

The disclosure of Valarie Plames identity, which since Armitage hasn't been indicted would seem to indicate that there wasn't a crime.




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