Maybe, that is why Berger hasn't taken the agreed upon lie detector test?

Comparisons between a misdemeanor (Berger) and felony (Libby) are laughable. You law and order conservatives crack me up...

Blame Clinton, it's easier than thinking.

Lee ...? Seriously. How is taking and destroying sensitive documentation only a misdemeanor?

He's dirty. You know it. I know it. Anyone who's paid even a modicum of attention to this knows it stinks to high heaven.

I'll grant you Libby committed a felony. Lying about telling the truth about a liar is still lying.

Shoving documents in your socks in order to hide them from those who seek them is hardly a misdemeanor.

Berger did commit felonies.

Unauthorized destruction of classified information, is a felony under federal law

making false statements to investigators is a felony -- each individual lie exposing the declarant to as much as five years in jail.

I would simply challenge any fair-minded person (which obviously excludes Lee and Allen) to compare the two crimes and then aver that Berger's case was handled appropriately. Allowing Berger to waltz away from his perfidy is truly a stain on the Bush administration; never mind what it says about the sleaze of the Clintons.

very simple. Berger took a plea deal and avoided any jail time, because of Libby's arrogance and suicidal desire to go to trial, he most certainly deserves some jail time! After Berger made his plea deal and allocuted, Justice said he doesn't have to and NEVER has to take a polygraph. Happens every day. Too bad Libby couldn't have afforded better representation. Kind of funny, isn't it?

Berger took copies not the real documents, he was thoroughly investigated and that's the end of it.

Libby lied, obstructing Fitz's leak investigation, which lead him (a republican by the way - how does that always get buried?) to go back to the 3 judge panel that appoitned him and clarify the following: if anyone was obstructing his investigation - by lying for example - that he could prosecute them. The agreed, so he went after Libby. the interesting thing to speculate about is why would Libby lie? Anyone want ot answer that? Why would Libby risk his job, his reputation and jail? What's worth that price?

"Lee ...? Seriously. How is taking and destroying sensitive documentation only a misdemeanor?"

Berger plead guilty and was convicted of a misdemeanor.

Libby plead innocent and was convicted of a felony.

yet another inconvenient truth....

"Berger took copies not the real documents, he was thoroughly investigated and that's the end of it."

Horse hockey.

By the way, no one is denying or avoiding the fact that Fitz is a republican. Must be odd for you to deal with folks who don't immediately castigate/anoint a person based on their political affiliation.

Maybe if some lefties would be a bit more critical of their leadership we could something done.

Posted by: Lee at March 12, 2007 02:23 PM

UGH!

Apparently, you're not familiar with what a plea bargain is. I'm not concerned with what he plead, I'm concerned with the actual crime.

Actually, how do you plead guilty and get convicted?

Tell me, genius, how is that possible?

There's nothing "inconvenient" about any of this other than the way you formulate your arguments.

It's carved in stone: Conservatives dump their garbage, liberals treasure theirs.

Barone is just a dick. If you want to make a point make it without lying:

"..concealed them in his pants and socks,.."

He put the documents in his briefcase and pockets:
"On Sept. 2, 2003, the associate said, Berger put a copy of the Clarke report in his suit jacket. He did not put it in his socks or underwear, as was alleged by some Republicans last summer."

And this:
"Some of these documents may have been unique and may have contained handwritten comments that could have looked bad in light of what happened on September 11."

The documents were copies, and the handwritten notes were notes made by Berger as he was preparing for the commission, and not (as implied) made back in 2000.

"Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost."

This why conservatives have no credibility. For the last four years we have had to put up with their crap.

Posted by: BarneyG2000 at March 12, 2007 02:30 PM

Interesting points. What's your source on that info?

Just to clarify something - a copy of a classified document retains the original classification of the original document. You don't take a top secret document, copy it once, and end up with a secret document, copy it again and have a confidential document, copy it again and end up with a FOUO (for official use only) document, copy it again and end up with something completely unclassified.

Destroying a copy of a classified document, whether it's smuggled out in a briefcase or someone's underwear, is still destroying a classfied document.

Apologists for Berger argued that no harm was done, because other copies of the same reports were still in the possession of the commission. But that, of course, is preposterous. If Berger thought it necessary to destroy the reports, even though other copies of them were available to the commission, then what he wanted to destroy wasn't the reports themselves but things their recipients (very probably including Clinton) had written on those particular copies.

Hang Berger and let Libby swing right along with him.

JL and JP, Barone implies that the documents were originals. They were not. The documents were copies. No information was destroyed only copies of documents.

Barone can't make his point without lying.

Yes as far as the classification, original or copies it makes no difference. Barone is implying there is a cover-up by Berger to protect Clinton. This is absurd.

As far as sources, I read articles from CNN, Washington Post and Opinion Journal. Each source substantiated my account above.

As jp pointed out Berger committed felonies.If he was a Republican leftists would be shrieking for his life to be destroyed.And if the justice dept. had had the balls to go after Berger for what he did instead of quietly plea bargaining this away,they would be shrieking that it was a politically motivated hit job.As usual-one standard for leftists,another for Republicans.

Jo: "Actually, how do you plead guilty and get convicted?"

Was that a serious question? You open your big yap and spew your opinion on these crimes, and then say something as stupid as "Actually, how do you plead guilty and get convicted?".

Clearly you're an idiot, Jo.

Sloppiness. It was just pure sloppiness on Berger's part. He is just a very sloppy person--that's all. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy...albeit with CODE BLACK secutiy documents...but just sloppy, sloppy, sloppy nonetheless. Nothing to see here--move along....

Posted by: Lee at March 12, 2007 03:05 PM

Well, at least I had the common decency to get YOUR name right, pucker-puss.

As for your questioning of my question ... you're missing the subtle, yet genteeeeeel nuance of my issue: If you plead guilty, you essentially convict yourself, right?

Anyway ... at least when I open my big yap, a big dallup of turd doesn't fall out.

Despite prosecutors' statements, some critics continued to make unsubstantiated allegations. This led The Wall Street Journal to reiterate its position, stating "Some people won't let a bad conspiracy theory go". The paper went on to say: "The confusion seems to stem from the mistaken idea that there were handwritten notes by various Clinton Administration officials in the margins of these documents, which Mr. Berger may have been able to destroy. But that's simply an 'urban myth,' prosecutor Hillman tells us, based on a leak last July that was 'so inaccurate as to be laughable.' In fact, the five iterations of the anti-terror 'after-action' report at issue in the case were printed out from a hard drive at the Archives and have no notations at all."

heh.

It's not just an urban myth, it's a Republican LIE.

"Those documents, emphatically, without doubt--I reviewed them myself--don't have notations on them," Mr. Hillman tells us. Further, "there is no evidence after comprehensive investigation to suggest he took anything other than the five documents at issue and they didn't have notes." Mr. Berger's sentencing is scheduled for July, and Mr. Hillman assures us Justice's sentencing memo will lay out the facts and "make sure Mr. Berger explains what he did and why he did it." Meanwhile, conservatives don't do themselves any credit when they are as impervious to facts as the loony left.

Posted by: Lee at March 12, 2007 03:10 PM

Fine. The documents didn't have notes. I personally didn't think that point relevant. What's relevant is that Mr Berger up and walked out (either in his socks, panties, fish nets or his briefcase) with sensitive documents.

Why?

BarneyG2000:So Barone is a dick and a liar? You're lucky you're not a conservative or people would be demanding you be silenced.So just why would Berger bother to do what he did? To see if he could get away with it? Did Tony Lake double dog dare him to? Why? He committed MULTIPLE FELONIES.He was Clinton's National Security Advisor-at some point someone probably mentioned the stealing classified documents was a crime.Yet he did it anyway.WHY? Where was the upside? As usual, leftists don't have a problem with crimes committed by their own-but the Justice Department should have.

This really seems small beer compared to Libby's repeated lying to a grandjury and the FBI.The reason behind Berger's 'crime' was that according again to the 'Wall Street Journal' "Prosecutors believe Mr. Berger genuinely wanted to prepare for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission but felt he was somehow above having to spend numerous hours in the Archives as the rules required, and that he didn't exactly know how to return the documents once he'd taken them out...Let's remember the context; this was a 9/11 commission the secretive Bush administration never wanted, resistedthen accepted reluctantly, low balled, 'stonewalled' and 'slow walked' the commission, including withholding thousands of documents from the Clinton administration that had already been cleared by Clinton's general counsel Bruce Lindsey for release to the 9/11 Commission. [New York Times, 4/2/2004] In April, after a public outcry, the Bush administration granted access to most of the documents."

"and that he didn't exactly know how to return the documents once he'd taken them out."

... ?

The National Security Adviser didn't know how to return National Security documents?

He never had a library card?

Mommy never taught him how to return things back to where he'd found them?

That's funny.

Lee -

Glad to see you're okay! And your posts here demonstrate that you really can post on topic when you want to.

Since you're clearly done some recent research on this, can you point to a source which provides the reason why Berger did it? It sure seems to me to be too many instances for simple (or even complicated) carelessness. Also, were any of his falsehoods given while he was under oath?

Some of these documents may have been unique and may have contained handwritten comments
...
Did Bill Clinton ask him to destroy documents

High-larious. The first two conspiracy hallucinations were long ago glaringly shown to be false. But the third one has the word "Clinton" in it, so let's give credence to that one, shall we?

By the way, I find it unlikely that Libby would have done something like this on his own. Did George Bush ask him to lie? Ooh, I know! I'll go post that question on some left-wing fringe site and pretend that it's a serious question!

Lee:Berger took and destroyed documents.How does Mr. Hillman know what was on documents that were destroyed? Did Berger tell him? In the WSJ story you linked to Hillman said there was "no evidence" Berger took more than five documents.Again-How does he know? Does a career justice department employee really want to go after a politically connected friend of Bill with no support from his superiors? Absent a Special Prosecutor and a Grand Jury who knows what actually happened.If the Libby case ended as early as this a report would have come out saying Libby,Russert,and others were confused about what happened when and that would have been the end of it.But the leftists wouldn't let that happen would they?

Xennady, you obviously did not read or comment, or you are trying to twist what I wrote. I made no statement to the charges against Berger. He committed a crime, and is paying the price.

Barone is repeating known falsehoods about the case in an effort to imply a coverup. That is dishonest, and I do not know why columnist like Barone still have a job.

If you think that Berger got off easy, and al Scooter bin Libby got screwed, than fine make that point, don't lie about a coverup you know that does not exist.

Lee and Barney, you guys mught want to update your information to something newer than 2005. Such as oh let's say 2007.

Berger Case Still Roils Archives, Justice Dept.

Here are some select quotes:

"Under debate during the Nov. 23, 2004, meeting was Brachfeld's contention that President Clinton's former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger could have stolen original, uncatalogued, highly classified terrorism documents 14 months earlier by wrapping them around his socks and beneath his pants, as National Archives staff member John Laster reported witnessing."

"Brachfeld said he was worried that during four visits in 2002 and 2003, Berger had the opportunity to remove more than the five documents he admitted taking. "

"Brachfeld and House lawmakers have pushed new details about Berger's actions onto the public record -- such as Berger's use of a construction site near the Archives to temporarily hide some of the classified documents."

"Archives officials had acknowledged not knowing if he removed anything else and destroyed it. "

" including that he removed and cut up three copies of a classified memo."

"If he took papers out, these were unique records, and highly, highly classified. Had a document not been produced, who would have known?"

"In an April 1, 2005, press conference and private statements to the commission, the Justice Department stated instead that Berger had access only to copied documents, not originals. They also said the sole documents Berger admitted taking -- five copies of a 2001 terrorism study -- were later provided to the commission.

Those assertions conflicted with a September 2004 statement to Brachfeld by Nancy Kegan Smith, who directs the Archives' presidential documents staff and let Berger view the documents in her office in violation of secrecy rules. Smith said "she would never know what if any original documents were missing," Brachfeld reported in an internal memo."

correction: read my comment, and not read or comment. Also, has a job and not have a job (Monday).

BarneyG2000 -

All security courses I've taken in the military emphasize that a copy of a classified document retains the orginal classification of the document - therefore it's still classified whether it's a copy or not. Taking out a copy of a classified document is still taking a classified document out of official control.

Sorry - but you can't use the 'it was just a copy' excuse - that copy has the same classifications and restrictions the original had, and that precludes stuffing it into (_whatever_) and disposing of it at your leisure later.

I ain't being partisan here, just stating how we handled it in the military. By what I was taught, Berger should be in Leavenworth now.

Steve C:So why didn't he just stick them back in his pants and walk them back in? Oh-sorry-carry them back in his briefcase.But that's pretty much what I expect of Democrats-all those silly rules are for little people.The NY Times opinion of Bush's cooperation with the 9/11 commission are irrelevant to the issue of Berger's multiple felonies.Do you think he wouldn't be able to come up with an innocuous sounding explanation if the occasion demanded? Again-one standard for Democrats like Berger who always get the benefit of every doubt, and another for Republicans like Libby who are always assumed to be up to nefarious purposes.

By the way Lee the Wall Street Journal has since retracted the article that you linked, after the Archives' Inspector General report came out.

Eric, how dare you confront our leftie guests with facts. Now you are making them dig deeper for sources to dispute you. Huff Po, Daily Kos, etc. ww

Old Coot,

Better get a pair of new reading glasses. My post never said anything about Burger or Libby. All I said is to blame Clinton, it's easier than thinking.

As to being fair minded, I look at both sides of an issue, which I wonder if you do, or you wouldn't have blamed me for something I never mentioned.

BarneyG2000:So now I'm a liar too,and twisting what you wrote to boot.Mighty quick with those accusations aren't you? Pardon me but I have a different opinion about who is lying in this case and it ain't Barone-it's Berger.I dispute that Barone is repeating known falsehoods.It just seems like that to you because apparently you take anything said by a fellow leftist as gospel.I don't and Barone doesn't either.I don't know if there was a coverup and you don't either-but I strongly suspect there was.

I'm in the Air Force and have dealt with classified material a good deal of my career.

If I were to do what Mr Berger did? I'd be doing hard time at some Federal Pen for the next 20 years.

If I were to forget who I heard what? I'm thinkin' that not much would happen.

Allen: Apologies, I was blinded by your snark.

Eric, you're right - thanks for the correction regarding the WSJ retraction.

Ooops -- the inveterate lie-alleger has lied himself!

Justice said he doesn't have to and NEVER has to take a polygraph. Happens every day.
Posted by: kylie at March 12, 2007 02:19

Really?

Berger was never given a polygraph test despite having agreed to it as part of his plea bargain with the Justice Department in 2005.

I suspect you mis-spelled your name and it actually ie "Wylie" and as Wylie E Coyote and you just blew yourself up.

Can anyone explain why a lawyer at the Archives, Jason R. Baron has been quoted as saying, ""it is conceivable that the 9/11 commission may not have received" all the requested documents?

Can anyone explain why in the report (pdf), issued by Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) what Berger took "included uninventoried draft documents, memos, e-mail messages and handwritten notes?"

And here's a "special" question for those above claiming Berger didn't return the docs because he didn't now how.... (comical isn't it?) Is tossing them under a construction trailer outside the National Archives to be retrieved later the proper way to "return" them?

And don't even try to discredit the report because Rep. Davis is a Republican, not after your whole hearted support for the [otherwise evil] Republican Fitzgerald.

Not sure what the new news is on this. Speculation as soon as Berger was caught is that he was doing it to protect Clinton or some other higher up.

As for the copy vs original. My understanding is that they were both. Let me explain. You go to a meeting. You get a copy of a memo. You don't get an original. Everyone has a copy however each person may make notes on their copy. Making it an original in that respect.

What we do know. When the archive noticed a page missing they laid a trap. When Berger came back to look at documents again they put a copy of that same page back into it. Berger took that same page again. That implies he was removing specific information. The questions are what and why? It wasn't a mere accident or slip of judgement. The next question is why did DoJ allow an allocution that they had to know was false?

The archive admits it doesn't know exactly if anything is missing or if they were true copies or originals or both.

The DoJ admitted that it didn't quite tell the whole truth to the commission when it stated nothing was permanently lost. Which is why some 9/11 commission members were more than a little upset when this came out.

So Libby lied and gets jail. FBI lies and nothing happens. Berger lies and gets a minor slap on the risk. Looks like DoJ just got in trouble again for some less than truthful statements which is why some are calling for Gonzalez to resign. Bets on someone from FBI going to jail for lying about this either? Don't count on it.

All security courses I've taken in the military emphasize that a copy of a classified document retains the orginal classification of the document - therefore it's still classified whether it's a copy or not. Taking out a copy of a classified document is still taking a classified document out of official control. by JL

Jl, I was point put that the documents were copies and not originals as Barone suggests. Also, I made this statement:
"Yes as far as the classification, original or copies it makes no difference. Barone is implying there is a cover-up by Berger to protect Clinton. This is absurd."

I am happy to clear up this misunderstanding.

This is another example of how the right twists the truth.

You can't prove that Berger didn't steal original documents, so maybe he did?

This isn't the public library. You just don't walk in off the street and pull books of the shelf. You have request specific documents. In the Washington Post article:

In a letter to House lawmakers last week, Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard A. Hertling did not address the issue of why the department told the commission so little. But Hertling wrote that in numerous interviews, "neither Mr. Berger nor any other witness provided the Department with evidence that Mr. Berger had taken any documents beyond the five."

Lee and Barney continually defend the indefensible in the
name of partisanship. It like that have not emotinally grown since they were kids. All they can do is tit for tat...even when they are wrong. Sad but typical behaviour for a Dim.

"You can't prove that Berger didn't steal original documents, so maybe he did?"

B.S. Barney! But he did take 5 documents and ADMITTED TO DESTROYING 3 of them. He shredded them with scissors. It wasn't an accident, he did it intentionally.

"You can't prove that Berger didn't steal original documents, so maybe he did?"

So, to what did he plead guilty?

BarneyG2000:You're begging the question! You assume Berger was not covering up for Clinton so when Barone suggests he may have been you then conclude Barone is a liar.Again-where was the upside for Berger to do this? Why would he bother? He committed multiple felonies! This assistant AG Hertling works in the Bushitler justice department,right? Do you so uncritically accept everything from the Bush DOJ-or just this? And to find out if Berger took more documents-he asked Berger! Come on-you can't be that credulous can you?

Funny how quickly you guys got away from the point of Barone's article, which was that Berger was covering for Clinton. What makes the article BS is that Barone bases his thesis on the fact that he doesn't think Berger would have done this on his own. In other words, he pulled it out of his ass. I can see why the righties are trying to turn this into a "how guilty was Berger" discussion rather than discussing the substance-free Barone column that inspired this post. Note that the title of the post is "A Cloud Over a Former President." Yeah, a cloud of Michael Barone's invention.

By the way, it's interesting how Barone spins the Wilson story. He says Wilson "suggested that he had been sent to Niger in response to a request by Cheney," followed by "all those claims were false." The usual right wing lie is that Wilson "implied" he was sent to Niger at Cheney's request, which Wilson has never said. Wilson hasn't implied that he was sent in response to a request by Cheney, he has come right out and stated it. Cheney requested more information, and the CIA responded by sending Wilson. That's very different than claiming the VP sent him, yet Barone mixes the two together. Cheney requested more information. That's an accepted fact.

He also repeats the lie that a "bipartisan" Senate panel decided that Wilson lied. The panel was bipartisan, but the Democrats refused to sign off on the section about Wilson. So the actual truth is that the Republicans on the panel decided he lied. Big difference.

As for Berger, what he did was wrong and embarrassing for Democrats. But the bottom line is that he pled to misdemeanors. Prosecutors bring cases they think they can win, or plead them down if they get some kind of punishment that comes close to fitting the crime. People can claim all they want that Berger committed multiple felonies. I think Rove committed felonies by lying to the Grand Jury, before which he appeared five times to clarify his story or add information he "remembered." But Fitz didn't charge him (yet), probably becasue he thought it would be too difficult to get a conviction.

But this is all based around statements like there "could" have been notes on the documents Berger took, or that he "might" have taken other documents. The whole thing about the socks is based on staff member John Laster witnessing Berger doing it. Since we're all speculating, doesn't it seem a little weird that a National Archives staff member sees someone putting documents in his socks and doesn't do anything about it?

And as for Xennady's comment "Does a career justice department employee really want to go after a politically connected friend of Bill with no support from his superiors?" All I've been hearing from the right for the past year was how Fitzgerald was out of co0ntrol, he had a vendetta against Libby, he's out to destroy the White House. So I guess a Republican career federal attorney will go after the Republican chief of staff to a VP in a sitting Republican administration, but a career federal attorney in a Republican administration will be intimidated from pursuing a National Security Advisor from a Democratic administration that is no longer in power? Very consistent.

Xennady, it is nice to have a shred of evidence first before you make accusation. The right is starting to sound like real conspiracy nuts.

I am going by evidence and sworn testimony.

Why did he do it? Apply Ockham's razor, he thought he was privileged and above the rules. He took several copied documents, some of the copies were duplicates, or least he thought they were. He shredded the duplicates, because he did not need the duplicates.

He was caught and punished.

If you show an evidence that original source material was lost, than you have a case.

Chriso, That bit about Wilson saying that Cheney sent him lie reminded me of something.

A couple of days ago, I complained about this same old tired lie, and wanted to know when the right was going to drop this. I was told by several right leaning contributors here that nobody on the right makes was making that statement.

Well, guess what happened yesterday on This Week? George Wills said that Wilson lied when Wilson said that Cheney sent him to Niger. At least the other members of the panel jumped on his ass.

Wills didn't have the common decency to acknowledge his mistake. Typical

ChrisO said:
"Cheney requested more information, and the CIA responded by sending Wilson."

Chris that is now in dispute. Why? Because Valerie e-mailed her boss on Feb 12, 2002 recommeding Joe for going to to Niger to check out the Iraq/Niger connection.

Recent information has revealed that Cheney was first briefed on the connection by the CIA on Feb 13, 2002. It is AT THAT POINT that he asked the CIA for their analysis. One day after Valerie suggested her husband for the trip.

So CIA did not respond by sending Wilson, they were sending Wilson regardless of what Cheney asked. So when Wilson states that he was sent to Niger because of Cheney that is false.

"The panel was bipartisan, but the Democrats refused to sign off on the section about Wilson. So the actual truth is that the Republicans on the panel decided he lied. Big difference."

Yes that is a big difference. Are you implying that the Republicans on the committee put that information in the report for partisan reasons or that the Democrats excluded it for partisan reasons? Seems to me that the Republicans are letting history decide by including what Joe and Valerie said vs. the Democrats simply excluding it from the public record.

With that in mind who do you think was being partisan?

Hey Barney, Here is what ChrisO said:
"Wilson hasn't implied that he was sent in response to a request by Cheney, he has come right out and stated it."

ChrisO must be part of VRWC.

Don't you conservatives have anything better to do with your time than to vociferate over a guy convicted of a mere misdemeanor? Heck, it's not like Mr. Berger was convicted of multiple felonies (say like Mr. Libby).

ChrisO, you reveal the poverty of your rhetoric when you refer to Fitzgerald as a 'Republican career federal attorney' in the context of his actions against Libby, and to 'career federal attorneys', DoJ attorneys, not being intimidated into going easy on Democrats in a Republican Administration. Are you so naive as to believe the dynamic you are proposing, or are you merely dishonest?
==================================

Herman,

try to keep up, woudlja'?

Eric, the SSCI is very clear on who sent Wilson and why (Cheney wanted more intelligence on the forged document) and the part of the SSCI you are referring to the "additional Comments" section. These are the views of the Republican committee members. The Democrats were not consulted, or asked to participate in the comments.

Barney, as I said the other day in another thread. Whether or not Cheney sent Wilson is not that big a deal.

In my opinion the bigger deal is that

1) Wilson claimed there was no evidence that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. That is a false statement. The former PM interpreted that an Iraqi delegation wanted to discuss buying uranium. It's not proof, but it is evidence. So to say there was no evidence is a lie.

2) Wilson repeatedly claimed that HE debunked the Nigeren forgeries. That is simply false. It is a blatant lie on his part.

3) As has been recently reported the Congolese government is investigating a uranium smuggling ring. If that proves to be true, then uranium smuggling is possible. If it's possible in the DRC then it is possble in Niger too.

Maybe Barone is new to it, but I've argued since 7/04 that Berger stole original marginalia absolutely damning to Clinton. I'm talking smoking gun. Why else risk what he did? Furthermore, that information is still very likely necessary for our ongoing security, if only in the context of assessing the ideologies and motivations of the participants, read Clinton's National Security Apparatus. By his thumbs 'til he talks.

My only consolation is, what are the chances he found all of the damning marginalia? Historians, ho.
==================================

See, there is something that thinking, and moderate, Dems are realizing, and that is that there are real skeletons re al Qaeda in Clinton's closets and that Joe Wilson lied, and Bush is on the right track re the GWOT.

Look at Joltin' Joe Lieberman. Don't you think he'd have a few questions for the Clintons?
===========================

See, there is something that thinking, and moderate, Dems are realizing, and that is that there are real skeletons re al Qaeda in Clinton's closets and that Joe Wilson lied, and Bush is on the right track re the GWOT.

Look at Joltin' Joe Lieberman. Don't you think he'd have a few questions for the Clintons?
===========================

Barney, As I have told you before, the SSCI did not have Cheney's briefing memo, so they did not see the exact date of his briefing in relation to when Valerie suggested Joe. They assumed that Valerie's e-mail followed Cheney's briefing. It didn't.

"The Democrats were not consulted, or asked to participate in the comments."

Barney, how's that hooked on Phonics course coming? How does your statement compare to this one from the SSCI?

"While there was no dispute with the underlying facts, my Democrat colleagues refused to allow the following conclusions to appear in the report:"

I could say it again.

How about if I say it this way.

KAMPUCHEA. Ever again.
=================

According to the Archives' IG Report Berger made and received repeated phone calls while he was examining the documents. Who were those phone calls to and from. Why would he originate numerous phone calls while examining the documents?

Care to use Occam's Razor for that one Barney?

ChrisO:

I can see why the righties are trying to turn this into a "how guilty was Berger" discussion rather than discussing the substance-free Barone column that inspired this post.

Maybe... just maybe by all accounts Berger did what he did at the behest of Clinton. Funny how YOU forget that little fact established during the investigation in a comment railing on about "partisanship.

Care to use Occam's Razor for that one Barney?

Posted by: Eric at March 12, 2007 06:09 PM

Dude .. ! Duh! Berger could multi-task like a demon! He was ordering a pizza and rounding up hookers.

He worked for Clinton, after all.

ChrisO:You didn't answer my question.Clinton and his party are infamous for politically motivated legal proceedings and character assassination of opponents and others who might do them damage.Remember all the slander they put out about Ken Starr? The Bush administration plainly didn't want to go after Berger-and not to their credit IMHO.So why would anybody at DOJ want to go after Berger as a solo project knowing they would be publicly savaged by the left and ignored by their superiors? In fact I'd bet that if this guy had gone after Berger he would be a household name now-like Ken Starr-as an example of the out-of-control corrupt Bush DOJ.And then in 2009 when Democrats came back-well,bye bye career.But where was the downside for Fitzgerald of going after Libby? The entire press and the Democratic party are cheering him on-and if he had dropped the investigation they all would have screamed that Bushitler had gotten to him.Not only that but Bush did nothing to help Libby.As for Barone-he knows Berger.Do you? I read the relevant section of the "bipartisan" report and the transcript of Wilson's testimony plainly reveals that he was lying.Yes,LYING.For example he claimed his wife had nothing to do with him being chosen to go to Niger-LIE. No surprise that Democrats wouldn't sign off on the report-they won't sign off on what the meaning of the word "is" is, either.Staff member John Laster and his coworkers DID do something about Berger, resulting in this comment thread among other things.And since Rove hasn't been charged with anything and Fitzgerald says he doesn't expect to charge anyone other than Libby,it doesn't matter what you believe about Rove.I believe Clinton is guilty of numerous felonies including rape and quite possibly murder-but that is irrelevant now.

Don't you conservatives have anything better to do with your time than to vociferate over a guy convicted of a mere misdemeanor? Heck, it's not like Mr. Berger was convicted of multiple felonies (say like Mr. Libby).
Posted by: Herman

And why was it a misdemeanor Herman? Could it be thru DoJ idiocy he never went to trial and plead out to a lesser offense. As opposed to Libby who didn't.

Is that possible Herman?

Eric, I guess you do not understand the term, bipartisan findings? If both sides do not agree to include the finding in the report, it does not get in.

There were findings supported by democrats that republicans blocked, and republican supported findings the democrats blocked.

Yeah Barney-apply Occam's Razor.Berger committed multiple felonies by stealing classified documents-for his convenience! Yep.Again-why did he risk so much for so little? What was the point? Why would a former National Security Advisor do what he did? I strongly suspect that it wasn't just because Mr. Berger found procedures for handling classified documents too burdensome to follow.In fact,when I apply Occam's Razor it leads me to the conclusion that you don't risk what Berger risked just to save some hassle-you are covering something up.But then again maybe he just believed stealing classified documents wasn't a crime because he was a Democrat.

Lee/Pee, Berger pled to a lesser charge of a misdemeanor.

The manipulation of national security docs is more grievous than a perjury charge.

It is not clear they were all copies; the bin he took from had not been fully indexed.

I love how you looney leftists stand up for a lying scum who stole national security docs.

At least we don't sell out our country for a Clinton.

See, Xennady, they were really his and Clarke's and Clinton's anyway. Ya' see?
==============================

Eric, I guess you do not understand the term, bipartisan findings? If both sides do not agree to include the finding in the report, it does not get in.
There were findings supported by democrats that republicans blocked, and republican supported findings the democrats blocked.

So what's your point Barney? According to the quote I gave, the Democrats agreed with underlying facts, yet they blocked the conclusions from being entered. As I stated earlier, the Republican Senators are at least letting history judge by presenting the facts instead of blocking them.

Xennady, thank for demonstrating your totla lack of understanding the concept of Occam's razor.

Eric, I am not going to rehash the whole Wilson case again, but I will say this.

If the 2/13 memo is so important, why wasn't it presented to the SSCI? If the memo was lost, why didn't one person from the CIA, the Office of the VP or the VP himself collaborate the content of the memo and tell the committee the truth (Occam's razor applied here)?

Because Cheney saw the DOD report on the 12th, and he told an aide to get the CIA on the case. This is a bipartisan agreed to Fact.

BarneyG2000:Thank you for demonstrating you total inability to respond to my argument.

Barney, I don't think YOU understand Occam's Razor.

"All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."

1) Berger illegally took classified documents

2) Berger used clandestine methods to remove documents from National Archives

3) Berger destroyed classified documents

4) When confronted, Berger lied about his actions

You seem to think that means, the simplest reason is that he did it because he had a sense of priviledge rather than because it is illegal.

By your definition of Occam's Razor, the 9/11 Hijackers merely had a bad sense of direction and accidentally crashed into three buildings.

BarneyG2000:Thank you for demonstrating you total inability to respond to my argument.

Posted by: Xennady

Xen, you had an argument? Sounded more like a delusional conspiracy rant.

"If the 2/13 memo is so important, why wasn't it presented to the SSCI? If the memo was lost, why didn't one person from the CIA, the Office of the VP or the VP himself collaborate the content of the memo and tell the committee the truth (Occam's razor applied here)?

Because Cheney saw the DOD report on the 12th, and he told an aide to get the CIA on the case. This is a bipartisan agreed to Fact."

Those are good questions. Except for one thing, THE EXISTENCE OF THE MEMO WHICH IS DATED FEBRUARY 13!!!!!

I'm not talking about a rumour of a memo, I'm talking about an actual memo that was an exhibit in a Federal trial.

You can't explain away the memo, it exists and it has a date on it.

Forget about what the SSCI said, as I have told you before, sources say the SSCI didn't have this memo.

Why are you being so obstinate about this? You have two documents one dated February 12 and one date February 13. What is so hard to understand about that?

Eric, all things equal (putting documents in your pocket and briefcase is "clandestine methods"?) privilege is far more "simple" explanation of the case than a Clinton lead conspiracy to hid Clinton's role in the 9-11 tragedy.

Your analogy is just plan stupid. You need to take in consideration that 19-hijackers were involved (all from Arab countries mostly from SA) on four different plans on the same day armed with weapons, and with the knowledge to fly plans. Occam's razor would lead to the conclusion that a coordinated attack was launched.

Eric:

Please produce an actual copy of the 2/13 email. A PDF or link will due. If you can not produce the document, please shut up, because all you have is Byron York's partial quote from the alleged email.

Isn't it a little suspicious that nobody is commenting on this bombshell email? Not Cheney, not Bush, not the CIA, not Tony Snow not any member of the SSCI. Nobody!

Barney,are you back for more? Is that the best comeback you have? Pitiful.

Uh...Barney? Bush et al have pretty much been done commenting on all of this for about two years.If what has already come out about Wilson hasn't convinced you he is a fraud and a lying partisan hack nothing will.

"You need to take in consideration that 19-hijackers were involved (all from Arab countries mostly from SA) on four different plans on the same day armed with weapons, and with the knowledge to fly plans. Occam's razor would lead to the conclusion that a coordinated attack was launched."

Berger improperly removed classified documents from the National Archives, according to a witness he hid documents up his pants leg, according to his own testimony he hid the documents on his person to get past security, according to his own testimony he hid the documents in a construction trailer for later retrieval, according to his own testimony he shredded 3 of the documents with scissors, when confronted about it all he lied.

Hmmm? What would Occam say about that?

No Barney, I've given you a link. You prove it wrong.

eric, what are you a chicken shit? Provide a link that includes the full contents of the email, and not one with selected quotes or summaries.

Xennady/Eric- you convinced me.

Barney/Lee - not so much.

If there's gonna be any more, I'll have to make some more popcorn.

Hey Barney,
Humor me, if the memo is true what does that say about your premise?

For me, if Byron York is lying, then my premise is full of shit and I'll admit I'm wrong, are you man enough to do the same?

But come on, do you really think a journalist is going to make that kind of easily disproveable lie? I'm mean, he names the exhibit number for a specific trial, it wouldn't take much to actually disprove that.

The memo says what it says. It is dated February 13.

Briefer: David D. Terry Briefing Date: 02/13/2002
Principal: Richard Cheney

Tasking:
The VP was shown an assessment (he thought from [the Defense Intelligence Agency]) that Iraq is purchasing uranium from Africa. He would like our assessment of that transaction and its implications for Iraq's nuclear program. A memo for tomorrow's brief would be great.

Eric, I stack my evidenice against yours:

Vice President Cheney read the DIA product on the day it was produced, according to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. That day he asked his intelligence community briefer what the CIA thought about the Niger issue.
The result was a very unbureaucratic scurry of activity.
First, the CIA fired back an assessment that in so many words said, "We're working on it." It promised to see if the information could be corroborated.

Second, CIA experts began to confer as to how this corroboration could be done. Who could make discreet inquiries in the region? One Counterproliferation Division expert offered up a name: ex-Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who happened to be her husband.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1115/p01s04-uspo.html

After reading the DIA report, the Vice President asked his morning briefer for the CIA's analysis of the issue. In response, the Director of Central Intelligence's (DCI) Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control (WINPAC) published a Senior Publish When Ready (SPWR021402-05), an intelligence assessment with limited distribution, which said, "information on the alleged uranium contract between Iraq and Niger comes exclusively from a foreign government service report that lacks crucial details, and we are working to clarify the information and to determine whether it can be corroborated." The piece discussed the details of the DO intelligence report and indicated that "some of the information in the report contradicts reporting from the U.S. Embassy in Niamey. U.S. diplomats say the French Government-led consortium that operates Niger's two uranium mines maintains complete control over uranium mining and yellowcake production." The CIA sent a separate version of the assessment to the Vice President which differed only in that it named the foreign government service
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2.htm

SSCI (why tell the VP if he did not ask the question?)
Conclusion 14. The Central Intelligence Agency should have told the Vice President and other senior policymakers that it had sent someone to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal and should have briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador's findings.

Your analogy is just plan stupid. You need to take in consideration that 19-hijackers were involved (all from Arab countries mostly from SA) on four different plans on the same day armed with weapons, and with the knowledge to fly plans. Occam's razor would lead to the conclusion that a coordinated attack was launched.
Posted by: BarneyG2000 at March 12, 2007 07:46 PM

But... but barneyg-RUBBLE aren't you the one who on many occaions posted links to Screw Loose in support of your theories?

Come on fess up, have you wondered away from the dark side now?

From the Byron York article:
"According to the Senate report, Valerie Plame Wilson sent her e-mail on February 12, 2002 -- the day before the vice president was briefed on the African uranium matter. "

So Byron is saying that the VP was briefed on the 13th!

My sources, the DIA, SSCI and Christian Science Monitor, say the VP was briefed on the 12th.

I'll stack the integrity of my sources against yours any day.

Correction...that should read Loose Change. Fess up barney you LOVE the place.

Heaven forbid RUBBLE actually look and read anything as factual as Screw Loose Change.

Barney,
I am not disputing that Cheney was briefed, I am not disputing that Cheney asked questions, I am not disputing that the CIA sent Wilson to Niger in part because Cheney asked the questions.

I am disputing that the CIA sent Wilson to Niger solely because Cheney asked those questions.

The DIA came out with their report on the 12th. That report would have been made available to numerous people on the 12th, including Cheney and the CIA. I am not disputing that Cheney may even have read the report on the 12th.

But the SSCI also says that he asked his MORNING CIA briefer about the report. So did the report come out on the 12th, and did Cheney read it on the 12th all before his morning CIA briefing?

Or did the report come out on the 12th, Cheney read the report on the 12th, as well as the CIA read the report on the 12th. At which point the CIA said hey we need to look into this, and Valerie Wilson says her husband would be a good fit. The next morning, the 13th, Cheney get his CIA briefing, asks about the DIA report and asks for the CIA's analysis. Guess what, the VP has just asked the same questions as the CIA.

Really, for all of our discussion about this. Big Effing Deal! You know I don't know why I am even fighting with you about this. What does it really matter, if Cheney asked the questions on the 12th or the 13th. Valerie still suggested her husband for the job, whether the request originated from Cheney or her boss. So what?

You still haven't answered the more important questions.

Why did Joe Wilson lie about there being no evidence, when the PM fo Niger told Wilson his opinion was that Iraq wanted to buy uranium.

You still haven't answered why anyone should believe Joe Wilson when he blatantly lied about debunking the Nigeren forgeries.

Google search SSCI:The former ambassador is Joe Wilson: "The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12, 2003) which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because `the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had NEVER SEEN the CIA reports and had NO KNOWLEDGE of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have "MISSPOKEN" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged." He also said he may have become CONFUSED about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself." In other words, Joe Wilson was lying.

One More thing Barney. I don't understand where you are coming from in this. On one hand you were arguing that Wilson never said he was sent to Niger by Cheney, then you spend a bunch of energy to prove just that. Which is it?

Did Cheney send Wilson to Niger or did the CIA?

I've been arguing all along that the Feb 13 memo indicates that the CIA sent Wilson not Cheney. You keep arguing that the Right Wing Lie is that Wilson claims he was sent by Cheney.

So which is it? Was Wilson sent to Niger by Cheney or the CIA? I don't mean did Cheney ask him personally to go.

Eric:

Finally, and thank you.

Of course the CIA knew of the forged document before the 12th. They also knew of the 1999 Iraq/Niger meeting. It was widedly report in Niger and French newspapers. Wilson was sent to Niger at the time by the CIA.

The CIA gave little if any credence to the Iraq/Niger/Yellowcake connection until the forged documents were made known to Tenet (early 2002).

So of course the CIA was trying to verify the intelligence at the time, but it was not a high priority until the VP started asking questions. Then the investigation was put on the fast track.

Joe did his part in debunking the forgery. This is not my opinion but comes from George Tenet:
"He (Wilson) reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office." George Tenet 7/11/03

Wilson said in his Op-ed that he played a small role in the debunking of the forgeries. No one in intelligence believed that the documents were true. Not the CIA, not Powell, not the DIA and not the DOD. The only people that did were Cheney and Bush

actual:Thanks for taking the time to post your opinion of our exchange-I appreciate the feed back,especially since I like your assessment!

More about Wilson can be found at this link in case anyone still cares:http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp

Okay Barney, here is the problem with your last post. You are mixing up several things here. The Niger Forgeries did not come into U.S. hands until October 2002. Wilson went to Niger in February-March of 2002, well before the forgeries came into our hands. Yet he claims that he debunked them even before he went on his trip.

The reason for the trip was OTHER evidence of an Iraqi-Niger connection that was found by the DIA.

Washington Post - Oct 25, 2005
"Wilson has also armed his critics by misstating some aspects of the Niger affair. For example, Wilson told The Washington Post anonymouslyin June 2003 that he had concluded that the intelligence about the Niger uranium was based on forged documents because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." The Senate intelligence committee, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports." Wilson had to admit he had misspoken."

"That inaccuracy was not central to Wilson's claims about Niger, but his critics have used it to cast doubt on his veracity about more important questions, such as whether his wife recommended him for the 2002 trip, as administration officials charged in the conversations with reporters that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald is now probing. Wilson has maintained that Plame was merely "a conduit," telling CNN last year that "her supervisors asked her to contact me."

But the Senate committee found that "interviews and documents provided to the committee indicate that his wife . . . suggested his name for the trip." The committee also noted a memorandum from Plame saying Wilson "has good relations" with Niger officials who "could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." In addition, notes on a State Department document surmised that Plame "had the idea to dispatch him" to Niger."

"Wilson also had charged that his report on Niger clearly debunked the claim about Iraqi uranium purchases. He told NBC in 2004: "This government knew that there was nothing to these allegations." But the Senate committee said his findings were ambiguous. Tenet said Wilson's report "did not resolve" the matter."

Barney still has to explain why, if Val and Joe knew about 'crazy reports from Africa' in early 2002, and the CIA received copies of the forgeries with 'funky seals' in Oct. '02, why did it take the IAEA in March of '03 to tell the world they were forgeries. What debunking did Joe do? And if he didn't, why not? Certainly, Joe and Val knew that the names were wrong and the dates were wrong. Who did they tell? Or who did they not tell? Inquiring minds want to know.
====================================

Here is complete timeline of the forged Niger documents.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq&general_topic_areas=africaUraniumClaim

You can back-check this against the SSCI report. In Oct 2001, Tenet was briefed on the documents content. Tenet did not have the actual copies, but the actual contents of the document was discussed.

Wilson was sent to Niger 1999 and again in 2002. In both cases to check Iraq's nuclear ambitions.

Not sure why anyone responds to Lee and Barney. They rarely make serious points and are just hijacking as many threads as they can. Ignore them and they'll go back to their swamps.

Hey "pucker puss" (lee lee) (resident turd polisher) (resident moron) where did you go. Get to rough for you. Or could you not think up another lie? Oh by the way use PH to get "yo"'s foot out of your ass. It wiil be alot less painful.LOL

Barney, your link looks suspiciously like eRipostes exhaustive but deluded research. Do you not see in the first paragraph that there was a widespread black market in yellow cake in 1999?

So why didn't Joe debunk the forgeries? Are you dodging this question or did you not see it?
==========================

Kim,
You want Barney to explain something? I am waiting for you and WildWeasel to answer my question. What, you made that post up in your mind? Must have or you would answer my question.

Allen, honey, I'll try, but I've been through this thread twice and I can't find your question. Some boards delete; does this happen here?

Oh, Barney. See that about the black market? Makes eRiposte's scholarship sort of navel-gazing, no?
===================================

Sorry, Mike, Barney makes serious points on Plame, but he is working from a database without sufficient familiarity with it. Some of his talking points are quite recent. He's kinda fun, but frustrating because they are programmed to never concede a point. Probably not good for the bonus.
========================

It's how you can tell a zombie from a thinking person. Honest discourse is instantly recognizable.
===========================

I'm confused. Barone's questioning the possibility that there are other reasons Berger took documents, besides "sloppiness", is outrageous?

But contending that it was simply "sloppiness" ISN'T? Ah, but he admitted his sloppiness, so all's well? Right?

If one person can give me one good reason why he took them without implying he just "forgot" he still had them or "didn't realize" he was committing a crime, I'm willing to listen.

And someone (I'm not going to read back over a hundred comments to see who it was) implied that Libby was stupid for not plea bargaining as Wilson did. Has it occurred to that person that he doesn't feel he intentionally lied? In other words, as long as one admits to a transgression it's okay to treat them differently/leniently, whether they really did it or not.

Libby didn't lie. Eckenrode, Russert, and Fitz lied. Them's blond facks.
=======================

And now it seems the CIA public relations officer who was Novak's confirmation of Plame's employment retired and went to work for NBC. I'm tellin' ya, not allowing the defense to impugn Russert's testimony is going to reverse Libby's

conviction on appeal. The Bird is dirty.
=====================