« Nancy Grace- The Take Down | Main | Dependents Outnumber the Producers »

France Warned Clinton CIA of Al Qaeda Hijack Threat

We learn from a Newsday report that in early January 2001, France warned the CIA of an al Qaeda plot to hijack planes:

France's foreign intelligence service learned as early as January 2001 that al-Qaida was preparing a hijacking plot likely to involve a U.S. airplane, former intelligence officials said Monday, confirming a report that also said the CIA received the warning.


Le Monde newspaper said it had obtained 328 pages of classified documents on Osama bin Laden's terror network that were drawn up by the French spy service, the DGSE, between July 2000 and October 2001. The documents included a Jan. 5, 2001, intelligence report warning that al-Qaida was at work on a hijacking plot.

Pierre-Antoine Lorenzi, the former chief of staff for the agency's director at the time, said he remembered the note and that it mentioned only the vague outlines of a hijacking plot -- nothing that foreshadowed the scale of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

"It wasn't about a specific airline or a specific day, it was not a precise plot," Lorenzi told The Associated Press. "It was a note that said, 'They are preparing a plot to hijack an airplane, and they have cited several companies.'"

This information doesn't mean that Clinton or Bush are at fault for not preventing 9/11 because, as the report said, it was simply too vague, something that Condoleezza Rice confirmed as well during the 9/11 hearings.

AJ Strata at the Strata-Sphere makes an interesting connection:

Now by coincidence this is the time frame the infamous Richard Clark document was being passed around the NSC for comment - the same document which Sandy Bergler stole from the National Archives and shredded in his office. It would make sense that whatever the French detected not only did they pass it on to Clinton's CIA, but our CIA probably detected it too! So I would wager the smoking gun Sandy Bergler risked serious jail time to destroy was something having to do with early warnings of a Bin Laden plot to highjack airlines, sourced or confirmed by the French.

Jeff Goldstein quips:

Well, the good news is, it blows to all hell Rosie O'Donell's studied, scientific views on the matter...

Indeed.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference France Warned Clinton CIA of Al Qaeda Hijack Threat:

» Blogs 4 Brownback linked with Our True Enemy

Comments (149)

Well, the good new... (Below threshold)
Heralder:
Well, the good news is, it blows to all hell Rosie O'Donell's studied, scientific views on the matter...

Not so much. The problem with conspiracies is that they are universally inclusive.

This, in the theorist's mind would simply be another layer of the conspiracy, orchestrated to trick the sheeple into believing the government's version of history.

On a lighter note, Bill Whittle posted his new essay that explores this very topic.

Clinton knew, Bush knew.<br... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Clinton knew, Bush knew.
And you wonder why the official story is treated with skepticism?
Loose Change revisits the scenarios the government itself used of airliners hitting the Pentagon, and the publication of manuals with the WTC in crosshairs.
Going back to the JFK administration.
Then Condi says NO ONE could imagine such a thing. Until she changed her story, of course.
Excuse my dust, google Operation Northwoods.

Heralder, If your go... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Heralder,
If your going to point to an apologist, make it a competent one. Whittle unwisely broadbrushes things. Gerald Posner is smarter. He's wrong, too, but wise enough to incorporate the stronger points of the opposition.
He muffed the Roswell thing badly though, so ignore him on that.

bryanD,That plan w... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

bryanD,

That plan was rejected by the government. Because some high-ranking people concocted some terrible ideas 40 years ago, doesn't give credence your 9/11 consipracy mongering.

I looked up Northwoods, now go read the essay I linked to.


I find someone of your inte... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

I find someone of your intellectual caliber calling Whittle incompetent pretty funny.

"It wasn't about a speci... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

"It wasn't about a specific airline or a specific day, it was not a precise plot," Lorenzi told The Associated Press. "It was a note that said, 'They are preparing a plot to hijack an airplane, and they have cited several companies.'"

The distinction between raw intelligence and actionable intelligence is lost on many people. The reason that we failed to prevent 9/11 is that the process by which raw intelligence is gathered and converted into actionable intelligence was/is broken. It's almost laughable to hear the partisans point fingers back and forth as to which President should have stopped 9/11, as if they're talking about some comic book hero.

"Because some high-ranking ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"Because some high-ranking people concocted some terrible ideas 40 years ago, doesn't give credence your 9/11 consipracy mongering. -heralder"

What did Santayana say about those who won't learn from history?

And as for Whittle, I read yesterday's installment: it's bedtime stories for nervous children.
If he thinks Oswald acted alone, he needs to tell the 1978 House Assassinations Committee Report which found proofs of conspiracy.

I will admit I'm always skeptical of "investigators" who reinforce the safe, comfortable positions held by vested interests. Debunking is like a cry of "I'm worthy, so love me! I'm a big boy, now!"
It's more of kissing up, than pissing down, because the stream is but a tinkle.

Rant switch on:As ... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

Rant switch on:

As much as I think Bush has squandered the trust given to him by Republican and Democrat Conservatives, I still think Clinton and the liberals are to blame for all of this terrorist mess.

My conservative conspiracy theory stems from the fact that the Clinton Democrat-held White House most likely used the delays caused by Gore's "2000-post-election-result-denial-syndrome" to destroy as much evidence as possible at the White House. Then, when Bush's administration transitioned into power in the last days/minutes before the 2001 inauguration, months after the time that a new president should have transitioned (which is immediately after the 2000 election). Lets face it, everytime the Florida election results were recounted, Bush got more votes...and even less time to have an effective transition.

So it begs the question, what was the Clinton Liberal Democrat White House hiding that they destroyed the ability to use every computer in the White House, when they let Bush's folks in? why give Bush's administration so little time for an effective transition?

It seems the one thing Clinton and his Liberal mafia forgot was the National Security documents. They seemed to forget the documents that showed the Clintons knew alot more about the 9/11 plans than originally denied, and/or how they bungled important opportunities to kill/kidnap Bin Laden or other of his AlQaeda players.

Its quite incredible that Bush's Justice Dept let Clinton's hack, Sandy Berger, commit an act of treason by stealing & destroying National Security documents from the National Archives.

If there ever was a reason to fire Gonzalez, and fault Bush's presidency, it is for dropping the ball on sending Berger to prison for his heinous crime of stealing from the Nat'l Archives, as well as for not telling the American public what was stolen from Nat'l Archives.

As far as Rosie the bigot is concerned, I luv how Rosie agrees with a conspiracy theory that Mel Gibson's anti-semitic father also agrees with, as well as many other anti-american & anti-semitic political leaders and conspiracy theorists: that the US government used computer-guided planes to strike the towers and then send in black ops teams to bring down the buildings.

unfortunately, when a trans-continental jumbo jet slams into a skyscraper, and knocks off fireproofing from structural steel, which in turn exposes the steel to jet fuel that has ignited in confined spaces, there is only one way those buildings will go: straight down.

Since Rosie & the Clintons & the rest of the Liberal Democrat and Republican establishment think the truth should revolve around fixing their messed up lives, all of the world is made to suffer, and to be treated as their playtoy.

The Liberal Establishment's denials and promotion of conspiracy theories are another off-shoot of the 1960s Liberal Generation expecting others to fix their mistakes. Just like America has had to try and heal its damaged societal moral & diplomatic fabric after the 1960s Liberals gave the world the Vietnam defeat, and after the Liberal "free love" fiasco, and after Liberal pop-culture advocated the use of illegal drugs.

Now we have a country who will never be unified in the face of a determined enemy, and we hate the militray veterans who defend our liberties & freedoms.

"Free love" has turned out to be anything but free. We have paid a heavy price and present & future generations will be the ones who suffer the most because of promiscuity & Liberal sexual immorality, which has created new and more powerful STDs, and increased divorce, abortion, and death rates.

And new and more powerful illegal drugs are being created/used all the time, making America's and the Western worlds' youth the laughing stock of the world.

If there is any consiracy it is that the Liberal media conglomerates have put in place a media black out on the horrible failure of their Liberal dogmas and spin these failures as the faults of Conservative morality and diplomacy.

Unfortunately, America never had these failures until Liberals took over the education, policital, and even religious heirarchies in this great country.

Since the Liberals have controlled practically every facet of American life for the last 40 yrs, we have became a diseased and psychotic country not even sure of what the truth is, even when it slams us in the face.

The fruits of this Liberal conspiracy are only one: chaos.

All great societies & cultures never failed from external enemies; they always failed from internal enemies, whose philosophies were founded on perverted and demented moral systems & pacifistic foreign policy theories.

Rant switch off.
cheers.

bryanD,Wh... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

bryanD,

What did Santayana say about those who won't learn from history?

That the idea was turned down by the civilian leadership then, bodes well for applying this well-worn phrase to our government today. It would be turned down.

The fact that we can't keep the smallest of secrets from the press due to a legion of leakers throughout the three branches of government ought to jar you into using some common sense. Something as large as this could not have been held secret...someone would have talked...other than, of course, the terrorist who claimed responsibility for arranging it.

If he thinks Oswald acted alone, he needs to tell the 1978 House Assassinations Committee Report which found proofs of conspiracy.

Once I read Case Closed I'll let you know what I think about that.

I will admit I'm always skeptical of "investigators" who reinforce the safe, comfortable positions held by vested interests.

Also, uncoincidentally, these positions are most often known as the truth.
Taking the opposite tack on every issue just out of habit or for the sheer sake of doing so is betraying you Bryan.

Debunking is like a cry of "I'm worthy, so love me! I'm a big boy, now!"

Sounds rather like you harbor more than a little resentment for those who make your cross-eyed reasoning look as foolish as it actually is.

I agree with most of what B... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

I agree with most of what Bruce writes, save for one thing. That concerns Bush. History will be kind to Mr. Bush. He has protected America from its enemies and has conducted his adminstration with honor. He fought wars in two theaters, keeping our casualties light. History will not be so kind to the Democrats if they are sucessful at ending our work in Iraq. They will be unable to rewrite history to show the aftermath of such action could be blamed on the President and they will pay the price polically for year.

If he thinks Oswald ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:


If he thinks Oswald acted alone, he needs to tell the 1978 House Assassinations Committee Report which found proofs of conspiracy._bd

"Once I read Case Closed I'll let you know what I think about that._heralder"

Thanks for being so honest. "Mind on loan from Posner."

bryanD,Th... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

bryanD,

Thanks for being so honest. "Mind on loan from Posner."

I have respect for the man who recommended the book, it's simple. I'm sure you take, and digest recommendations in much the same way...or do you postulate in a vaccum?

The reason I deferred comment on this subject is that I currently have little knowledge of it.

Amazing.So we lear... (Below threshold)
JAW:

Amazing.

So we learn that Clinton learned during the ~20 days he was in office in 2001 about the plane threat. This just backs up what we learned years ago that the Clinton admin briefed the Bush admin about the threat and they did nothing about it. But that's just ridiculous, it must have something to do with the Berger "scandal" if we only ignore that little fact that he only took copies, and no original documents were missing. Oh, that must be a lie perpetrated by the liberal National Archives and Records Admin.

Hey slack JAW, you are out ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Hey slack JAW, you are out of date with the 'only took copies' business. It's pretty clear he took original marginalia; and probably not all of it.
================================

My deconstruction of your r... (Below threshold)
jim:

My deconstruction of your rant.

First, thanks for admitting this is a rant, from the outset. I just want to separate facts from opinions,

My conservative conspiracy theory stems from the fact that the Clinton Democrat-held White House most likely used the delays caused by Gore's "2000-post-election-result-denial-syndrome" to destroy as much evidence as possible at the White House.

That's not a fact.

Please show

a) any evidence that the Clinton-Gore White House engaged in this;

b) any evidence that there would be any crimes for the Clinton-Gore White House to cover up!

I submit that if there were any evidence to find, it would have been found by the 4-year, $40 million Whitewater investigation. They could find a blue dress, but they couldn't find any crimes in office.

So it begs the question, what was the Clinton Liberal Democrat White House hiding that they destroyed the ability to use every computer in the White House, when they let Bush's folks in?

This talking point has been thoroughly debunked, years ago. The impartial General Accounting Office itself did the debunking.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2001/05/19/MN169709.DTL

"The General Services Administration found nothing unusual about the condition of White House offices after Clinton officials left, and President Bush's staff said it had no records that indicated damage or subsequent repair work, the accounting office manager said.

"Bernie Ungar, director of physical infrastructure at the agency, said inquiries he made at the request of Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., led him to conclude that Clinton officials might have engaged in pranks during the transition, but did not cause major damage. "

"...At the time, Clinton offered to pay the cost of any vandalism but requested a detailed account of what, if anything, was amiss.

No such records exist, said Ungar, who questioned members of Bush's staff as well as workers who refurbished about 400 offices in the West Wing, the East Wing and the Old Executive Office Building.

"The GSA responded to Ungar in February and issued a statement Friday, saying, "The condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy."

Note the above is a reprint of a NY Times article; and note that no paper or pundit of any repute disputes this.

So your conspiracy theory has no actual incident to explain.

And now I get to point out the facts on the Sandy Berger issue.

Its quite incredible that Bush's Justice Dept let Clinton's hack, Sandy Berger, commit an act of treason by stealing & destroying National Security documents from the National Archives.

It's incredible because it's literally not credible - NOT TRUE.

Sandy Berger ONLY removed COPIES of documents. COPIES. Not originals.

What follows in your post is more opinion, which you are entitled to.

Unfortunately, America never had these failures until Liberals took over the education, policital, and even religious heirarchies in this great country.

Since the Liberals have controlled practically every facet of American life for the last 40 yrs, we have became a diseased and psychotic country not even sure of what the truth is, even when it slams us in the face.

Here's where your opinion wanders from the facts. 40 years back, takes us to 1967.

- Nixon was not a liberal.

- Gerald Ford was not a liberal.

- Reagan was not a liberal.

- George H.W. Bush was not a liberal.

- George W. Bush is not a liberal.

- Bill Clinton isn't even a liberal - he's a moderate. That's how he got elected.

- The GOP Senate and Congress since 2000 have been about as far from Liberal as you can get.

All great societies & cultures never failed from external enemies; they always failed from internal enemies, whose philosophies were founded on perverted and demented moral systems & pacifistic foreign policy theories.

Here's what's factually and historically wrong with this final statement:

a) "All great societies" have not fallen because of pacifistic foreign policy theories.

b) "All great societies" have not fallen because of internal struggles.

Hey jim, you're out of date... (Below threshold)
kim:

Hey jim, you're out of date with your 'only took copies' business.
================

OK, Kim; if that's so, I'll... (Below threshold)
jim:

OK, Kim; if that's so, I'll correct it. Just show me the info that Berger took originals - let alone that he destroyed them.

to Zelsdorf Ragshaft III: I... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

to Zelsdorf Ragshaft III: I would like to clarify my negative criticism of Bush.

as I have said on other blogs, I fault Bush for 9 months of failure against the 9/11 threat, and the Liberal Democrat Clinton for 8 yrs of failure and agree with your comment that history will be kind to Bush in terms of 9/11.

My negative criticism of the squandering by the Bush administration, of the trust Conservatives had given him, is in terms of all the other actions, or inactions, he has presided over, and allowed to occur under his watch i.e. the man does not know what the word "border" means, whether the continental U.S. or in Iraq. He is simply too stubborn, dumb, or liberal to want to enforce the borders of these two critical regions of the world.

His handling of the illegal immigration issue, making tax breaks permanent, reforming Social Security, post-Katrina emergency & rescue operations, veteran's administration hospitals, etc...I just dont see leadership on these issues.

Allowing Libby and 2 U.S. Mexican-American border patrol guards to be punished for not doing anything wrong. For the Pres. of the U.S. not to protect and/or pardon those being burned by witch hunts is frightening. Clinton pardoned out-and-out criminals, yet Bush does nothing for public officals that have wrongfully prosecuted. Sadly, one of Bush's presidential pardons was for a acid drug dealer, and yet other citizens, railroaded by Gonzalez's Justic Dept, get nothing.

His mishandling and coddling of the Berger acts of treason is beyond comprehension. Insane hands-off on the guy, and yet why????? The Justice Dept. should have had his Berger in shackles when that trial was over.

I also dont think he handle Hezbollah/Syria strong enough when they attacked Israel last summer.

I do not care the way he handled the Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers, or the Schiavo affair.
That he needed to be forced to pick a clear-cut conservative supreme court justice, as well as just signing a piece of paper, and then still allowing a handicapped person to be killed by the state, is preposterous. Ever since he and others in the Republican heirarchy let her die, their popularity has either faded or they have disappeared from the politcial scene.

but I would still rank Bush Jr. higher than his Bush Sr., Clinton, or Ford or Carter. I think overall, he will be remembered very well for his handling 9/11 and Iraq and Afghanistan. Its just that Bush doesnt seem to want to re-group, in a timely manner, when his ideas are not going right, or when he needs to apply strong pressure on other politicians to get meaningful change in government.

I also consider Congress even worse off than Bush in their lazy & downright immoral attitude towards alot of the same important & vital issues.

Once again, opinions are fi... (Below threshold)
jim:

Once again, opinions are fine, but man - there's some real differences between opinions and facts here.

as I have said on other blogs, I fault Bush for 9 months of failure against the 9/11 threat, and the Liberal Democrat Clinton for 8 yrs of failure and agree with your comment that history will be kind to Bush in terms of 9/11.

a) Clinton is not a liberal Democrat.
b) All the people involved in the first WTC attack were caught and convicted.
c) The attack on the Cole happened at the end of Clinton's administration - and Bush decided not to respond.

So it's Clinton's fault that Bush didn't respond?

What other things are Clinton's fault? I just want to know what you're talking about.

Allowing Libby and 2 U.S. Mexican-American border patrol guards to be punished for not doing anything wrong.

a) don't you think lying is wrong?

Libby lied. A jury of his peers found him guilty of it.

b) the border patrol guards fired at a man while he was running away *towards* the Us-Mexican border, in the back. Do you think that's right?

His mishandling and coddling of the Berger acts of treason is beyond comprehension. Insane hands-off on the guy, and yet why????? The Justice Dept. should have had his Berger in shackles when that trial was over.

Maybe they didn't have Berger in shackles because....no treason was committed?

Please prove me wrong, and show what treason Berger actually committed.

The best evidence of how th... (Below threshold)
pretzel_logic:

The best evidence of how the Clinton administration viewed terrorists threats is a search of all of Al Gores campaign speeches leading up to 2000 and how many times he mentioned terrorism???


Zero

Jim, your really sad. You k... (Below threshold)
bruce:

Jim, your really sad. You know as well as I that Johnson, Ford, Carter were very liberal compared to Reagan. Ford, and even Bush Sr. are exactly the Republican Liberals I am complaining about. Nixon came in after the Liberal fiasco of the Johnson administration. By the time Reagan got into power, Liberals had/have all the upper heirarchy positions in the U.S locked up. They run the EPA and FDA and most, if not all major upper education institutions. Clinton cleaned house in the Justice Dept. fired all conservative lawyers. Bush Jr. kept almost all of Clinton's nomineees. They have been given lifetime appoitnments or are tenured in many other academic institutions.

where is your proof that internal enemies such as immorality and pacifism did not cause great societies to fall? Rome fell because its immorality corrupted it from within. It had a drastic reduction in birth rates due to STDs. Byzantium fell because it thought pacifism would palcate the Muslims. This is common knowledge to historians.

In terms of Berger, get a clue. He stole originals. Berger admitted it but did not say exactly what he stole. You are sadly mistaken. read my proof at the following link(i noticed you provided nothing to rebuttal what i said):
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200703/ai_n18737193

excerpt from Human Events, March 5, 2007:

"President Bill Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger has pleaded guilty to stealing classified documents from the National Archives, but the case is still not over. "

"Although Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents in 2005, the DOJ did not thoroughly investigate all Berger's visits to the Archives. The DOJ was concerned only with the items Berger stole in his third and fourth visits, even though he admitted he had taken classified notes during his second visit."

"The report concluded: 'There is no basis for concluding that Berger did not remove original documents during his first two visits to the National Archives. It is not knowable whether Berger removed critical documents responsive to 9/11 Commission during those two visits. Given Berger's admission that he removed his classified notes during the July 18, 2003, visit, he certainly could have removed other classified documents.'"

"As a part of his plea deal, Berger agreed to undergo a polygraph test, but he was never made to do it."

end quote.

Gonzalez and Bush's Liberal Republican Dept. Of Justice dropped the ball in prosecuting this treasonous crime, and Clinton's Liberal Democratic thugs are traitors and crooks.

Clinton and his people took... (Below threshold)

Clinton and his people took the threat from Bin Laden seriously. Bush and his people did not. You can draw various conclusions from these facts, but the record is pretty clear that they are facts. During the first half of 2001, the Administration was obsessed with China, as anybody who was reading the papers in those days should be able to remember. The Bush security apparatus studiously ignored warnings from the departing administration and people like Clark that terrorism should be a priority.

"it must have something to ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"it must have something to do with the Berger "scandal"."

Supporter of the "Party of Criminal Frauds" and "Serial Liars" admits to Democrat criminal behavior then by nature tells a series of lies and baseless assertions in hopes of systematically decriminalizing already admitted to criminal acts. Like the following:


"if we only ignore that little fact that he only took copies"

"and no original documents were missing"

There is a feeling of having been violated everytime I hear a democrat admit the fact that they are criminals and engage in criminal activity , but hey what's the big deal? If the origional Documents were taken there is no way of ever knowing so we can tell the lie that only copies were taken.

Why don't you mention some "little facts" that are of some relevant importance?

Like Sandy Pants having yet to take the Lie Detector test that he agreed to take as part of his sentence?


Democrats are serial liars and criminal frauds with absolutely zero credibility no matter how much they scream "The sky is blue? , the sky is blue!" As for the Democrat cheerleaders, ahat can I say?

Being a Democrat requires the wiping of each others ass 24/7.

Jim, you are a very sad ind... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

Jim, you are a very sad individual indeed. I see you wish to charge into the sunset in defending the American Liberal establishment. oi vey...

The border patrol shot at the drug dealer when they thought he had a gun. Once they realized he did nt have a gun, they notified their supervisors that they had shot at an unharmed criminal. He was a known, repeat drug-runner.

The border patrol guards' supervisors did not follow through with the necesary paper work to state what happened. The DOJ refused to allow this evidence to be brought up at trial. This trial is under appeal. The guards did not cover up anything.

Libby did not cover up anything either. Show me one fact that he lied, or was it really a mistake in testimony? Wasnt he brought in front of a grand jury because he supposedly lied about outing a CIA agent's identity? well guess what Jim? Richard Armitage was the one who outed the agent, not Libby.

It was proven at this trial that Libby did not out the CIA agent. Yet Libby is found guilty of what Jim? for making a mistake testifying to the DOJ. Get a clue, what kind of draconian justice is that?

SO ACCORDING TO YOUR JUSTICE JIM, YOU AGREE TO MAKE UP A NEW CRIME FOR SOMEONE WHEN THEY ARE NOT FOUND GUILTY OF THE CRIME THEY WERE ORIGINALLY CHARGED/BROUGHT TO TRIAL FOR?

if you ask me Jim, you seem to support a pretty pathetic Liberal form of justice...as well as historical revisionism. Very Liberal in fact.

You know as well as I th... (Below threshold)
jim:

You know as well as I that Johnson, Ford, Carter were very liberal compared to Reagan.

Simply because they were not as conservative as Reagan, does not in any way make them liberal. That's ridiculous. They are simply less conservative. That would be like saying Limbaugh is a liberal, because he's less conservative than Charles Dodgson. Come on, really.

where is your proof that internal enemies such as immorality and pacifism did not cause great societies to fall?

You said ALL nations, not some.

My proof that your statement is not universally true, is every single time one nation conquered another.

So, did Ireland fall to Britain because of Pacifistic attitudes? Did Carthage fall to Rome because of pacifistic attitudes? Clearly, no.

Did Britain lose to our founding fathers because of Britain's social immorality and military pacifism? That's a unique argument. I'd say no. Britain was socially stiff, cruel to the poor, and totally in love with the exercise of military power.

Therefore, your statement of ALL nations falling for this reason is simply not true.

In terms of Berger, get a clue. He stole originals.

The very same article you link to, has a nice clue for you that you should get.

I quote:

"The Inspector General of the National Archives and Records Administration, Paul Brachfeld, wrote in an internal memo that Nancy Kegen Smith, who directs the Archives' presidential documents staff and supervised Berger's first two visits, told him she "would never know what if any original documents were missing."

So. No documents have been found to be missing.

That's basically the end of the story. I know how much you want to believe differently - but read the facts.

Facts which exist even in your own quoting, which you should have read better:

"The report concluded: '...It is not knowable whether Berger removed critical documents responsive to 9/11 Commission during those two visits.'"

'It is not knowable' means "there is no evidence".

Got that? Can it be any clearer?

And there's a further point you should get from this: the sources you have been listening to, bury the facts deep, because they really *want* you to be mad at Berger and Clinton and think they're treasonous.

When they twist the truth like this, they are *playing* you. Pure and simple.

I ask you: why would they try to manipulate you like that?

What do they have to gain from it?

Its just terrific how Jim H... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

Its just terrific how Jim Harrison conveniently forgets that Clinton had 8 yrs to prevent 9/11 and did nothing.

...and yet the Clinton White house staff leaves the White House computer system and files in shambles, delays the turnover of the Presidency to the new administration, and yet still throws everything in the lap of the new administration.

so what was Clinton's recommendation to the new Bush administration, in response to the Cole bombings? What exactly did Clinton and staff recommend that America should do as retaliation against Bin Laden for this attack? hmmmm???

simply astonishing the lack of common sense and distortion of the truth that Liberals have in analyzing the Clinton years.

Its really appalling.

Here's what's wrong with wh... (Below threshold)
jim:

Here's what's wrong with what you're saying:

- you have no evidence that Sandy Berger took any original documents.

- you have no reason WHY Sandy Berger WOULD take any documents.

- you are accusing liberals and Democrats of saying Berger should receive no punishment for making copies and removing copies.

Please show where I or any other Democrats have said that Berger should not be subject to the law, for the laws he has broken.

"if we only ignore that little fact that he only took copies"

Who is saying we should ignore this? No one.

"and no original documents were missing"

You mean, if there's no evidence?


If the origional Documents were taken there is no way of ever knowing so we can tell the lie that only copies were taken.

What a perfect, airtight little way to hate without needing any evidence.

Like Sandy Pants having yet to take the Lie Detector test that he agreed to take as part of his sentence?

What about it? If that's your argument, yes, I don't see a problem with him taking a lie detector test.

But him NOT taking one is NOT proof of anything, period.

Please wake up.

Bruce, please read up the t... (Below threshold)
jim:

Bruce, please read up the thread. I've already debunked all your talking points.

Its just terrific how Jim Harrison conveniently forgets that Clinton had 8 yrs to prevent 9/11 and did nothing.

Debunked upstream.

...and yet the Clinton White house staff leaves the White House computer system and files in shambles,

Debunked upstream. Please read again. This has been disproven by the General Accounting Office itself. If you believe in truth, you will realize that this statement is false. Please realize it.

delays the turnover of the Presidency to the new administration, and yet still throws everything in the lap of the new administration.

so what was Clinton's recommendation to the new Bush administration, in response to the Cole bombings? What exactly did Clinton and staff recommend that America should do as retaliation against Bin Laden for this attack? hmmmm???

Here. Try some facts:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=%22The_Path_to_9/11%22_(2006_Docudrama)/Facts_and_Fiction#Criticisms_of_Bill_Clinton

"Fiction:

[Path to 9/11] Screenwriter Nowrasteh told Front Page Magazine that the 9/11 report "details the Clinton's administration's response -- or lack of response -- to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests. The worst example is the response to the October, 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed. There simply was no response. Nothing." [8]

Fact:

This was contradicted by the commission's report, which stated:
"As evidence of al Qaeda's responsibility for the Cole attack came in during November 2000, National Security Advisor Samuel Berger asked the Pentagon to develop a plan for a sustained air campaign against the Taliban. Clarke developed a paper laying out a formal, specific ultimatum. But Clarke's plan apparently did not advance to formal consideration by the Small Group of principals. We have found no indication that the idea was briefed to the new administration or that Clarke passed his paper to them, although the same team of career officials spanned both administrations." [9]

It was also contradicted by the commission's executive summary:

"After the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, evidence accumulated that it had been launched by al Qaeda operatives, but without confirmation that Bin Ladin had given the order. The Taliban had earlier been warned that it would be held responsible for another Bin Ladin attack on the United States. The CIA described its findings as a 'preliminary judgment'; President Clinton and his chief advisers told us they were waiting for a conclusion before deciding whether to take military action. The military alternatives remained unappealing to them.

"The transition to the new Bush administration in late 2000 and early 2001 took place with the Cole issue still pending. President George W. Bush and his chief advisers accepted that al Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the Cole, but did not like the options available for a response. "

So Clinton was able to reach from outside the White House, and force Bush to not respond to the Cole? Is that really your argument?

Come on, man.

I know you hate Clinton. But for him to be able to influence the Bush administration's actions after Bush took office, Clinton would have to be God Himself.

Bush is responsible for his own actions. Are we agreed there?

Obviously Clinton did not g... (Below threshold)

Obviously Clinton did not get Bin Laden. We certainly fired plenty of ordinance at him during the Clinton era, however; and several terrorist plots were thwarted including an attempt to attack the American Northwest during the Milennium celebrations. The difference between Clinton and Bush is twofold: Clinton worried about terrorism while Bush ignored it and Clinton didn't prevent 9/11 but he didn't make the country weaker and more vulnerable as Mr. Bush has.

I don't share your belief in the leadership Principle and therefore have no reluctance to criticize the politicians to whom I give my always provisional support. On the other hand, Clinton was a competent and hard working president who left the country stronger, wealthier, and better respected than he found it. Bush is going to leave things in a profound shambles. Well, as an Indian friend of mine told me once, nations ripe for decline tend to find the right man to lead them downwards. Maybe Bush was fate.

"The Bush security apparatu... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"The Bush security apparatus studiously ignored warnings from the departing administration and people like Clark that terrorism should be a priority."

Exactly how could the Clinton Administration be at all concerned with informing the newly Elected Republican President when they had no intention of giving it up and in fact where desparately working around the clock to steal it away from President Bush? Oh and almost forgot their last minute democrat fund raising ala "Pardons for sale, not cheap" See Bubbu, Slick Willie or BJ Clinton at the White House, limited time only.


"Gonzalez and Bush's Liberal Republican Dept. Of Justice dropped the ball in prosecuting this treasonous crime, and Clinton's Liberal Democratic thugs are traitors and crooks."

Ouch man , hey Bruce, quite picking my brain,LOL.

Jim, That wasn't only a Rant as stated by Bruce that has your skivies in a bunch, it's a rant that also happens to be the honest to ... , nappy headed truth that has you throwing fits of rage and convulsions.

Defending the Criminal Democrat Party of Perpetual Fraud is a full time job , right Jim?

How are the benefits?

Exactly how could the Cl... (Below threshold)
jim:

Exactly how could the Clinton Administration be at all concerned with informing the newly Elected Republican President when they had no intention of giving it up and in fact where desparately working around the clock to steal it away from President Bush?

Well Rob, they could because they...did.

You know, that factual reality thing again.

Jim, That wasn't only a Rant as stated by Bruce that has your skivies in a bunch, it's a rant that also happens to be the honest to ... , nappy headed truth that has you throwing fits of rage and convulsions.

Rob, I've cited the facts proving what is factually incorrect within his rant.

Since you are so sure the rant is 'nappy-headed truth', it shuold be quite easy to prove my facts wrong, huh?

If so, then please prove my facts wrong.

Defending the Criminal Democrat Party of Perpetual Fraud is a full time job , right Jim?

Since the crimes you think the Democrats have committed don't actually exist in reality, it's quite easy. All I have to do is show the facts.

Like I have done.

If you don't like facts, they're still facts. That's how reality works.

How are the benefits?

The benefits of living in a world of facts are many. I get to sleep at night; I get to not hate people for crimes that don't exist; I get to be an adult; and I get to have a picture of the world which is as clear as possible, which means i get to build a foundation for the future that is as solid as it can get.

To those of you staunch def... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

To those of you staunch defenders of the worst American President in our history, Willima Jefferson Clinton. I ask but several questions. How did the Red Chinese develope miniture thermonuclear warheads and MIRVs? Could it have been through the use of the 5 Cray super computers delivered personaly by Clinton himself to our potential enemy? Which former American President has made a fortune giving speeches on behalf of the Peoples Republic of China? Which President sold pardons on his last days in office? I love it. One of you lames suggested Clinton dealt with al Qaeda. All al Qaeda did to the United States was because the the effective use of power welded by the phoney fucker Clinton. For the first time in our history, a bunch of criminals ran the White house, God help us if we let them back in. Notice how many times since Bush took office there has been attacks on the US. One, and the source had to move location, after location after location. Clinton could have taken car of Bin Laudin in Sudan. He was letting the little head to the thinking.

Jim, you are insan... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

Jim,

you are insane. Johnson not liberal? nor Carter? nor Ford? Ford was the one who did not want the Republicans to have anti-abortion in the 1976 Republican platform.

Jim your reasoning is very faulty. so since 1967 the USA has been run by conservatives? think about that Jim? do you really believe that? think real hard Jim.

we have abortion Jim. Did conservatives push for this?

porn is legal Jim? conservatives again?

Hollywood and the entertainment industry Jim? Run by conservatives?

legalization of drugs Jim? Who is helping push that?

contraceptives Jim? who wants to hand them out to everyone Jim?

Late term abortion Jim?

Gay marriage Jim?

Not one major university is known for its conservative teaching staff Jim.

The world we live in today is a product of the Liberal establishment of the last 40 yrs.

Britain was very weak in prosecuting the War against the U.S. They did not fight it to win, and many members of Parliament were sympathetic to us. They were weak and we were not. The Colonies did not want any compromise whatsoever with the Crown. Guess who won Jim?

In terms of Carthage, they also had a pacifist crowd that was trying to end war with Rome. Rome on the other hand never flinched in the face of Carthage. When Carthage finally disappeared from history was when its greatest generals were bought off. The Romans pacified Carthage through a variety of methods, while Rome remained constant.

The Romans, until they also went the way of STDs which weakened their native armies, and pacifism in not wanting to fight the northern European tribes, where always steadfast in never surrendering, even in the face of overwhelming odds.

After the disaterous defeat of Cannae at the hands of Hannibal, the Romans showed a considerable steadfastness in adversity. An undeniable proof of Rome's confidence is demonstrated by the fact that after the Cannae disaster she was left virtually defenseless, but the Senate still chose not to withdraw a single garrison from an overseas province to strengthen the city. In fact, they were reinforced and the campaigns there maintained until victory was secured; beginning first in Sicily under direction of Claudius Marcellus, and later Hispania under Scipio Africanus. Although the long-term consequences of Hannibal's war are debatable, this war was undeniably Rome's "finest hour".

Lastly Jim, Sandy Berger admitted to taking documents.

If you dont know what originals you have, how do you know what was taken? The National Archives was mismanaged and allowed Berger to take important National Security Documents, even originals Jim.

The DOJ refuses to give the lie detector test. They are afraid of the results Jim. Both Bush's DOJ and Clinton's people are criminals for not resolving this properly.

Let me put it to you this way Jim: when one looks at the kinds of documents Berger had, you are supposed to go view them in a SCIF i.e. a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. Access to SCIFs is severely limited, and all of the activity and conversation inside is presumed restricted from public disclosure. No windows, no phones, only a electic-key controlled door.

if Berger didnt steal anything important to National Security, why was he supposed to view those documents in a SCIF then?

hmmmm?

please Jim, Berger and Clinton are traitors and deserve to rot in jail. Bush should fired anyone in his DOJ who ignored the facts in that case and lessoned the punishment for Berger and are refusing to give the lie-detector test.

case closed.

I am a little confused...wh... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

I am a little confused...who was President on 9/11/01? ...I do not need to go into the security report Bush got ..ah when he was President...in August...I surrender...yep
CLINTON...CLINTON...
as...all us vets know(Bush vet..Clinton no)...the first words from a sentry are "Halt, who goes there?"
It was Clinton who said on 9/11..(in his arrogance I might add..)"Forget Bush, I am responsible for the safety of America...and I say..c'mon in"

After I wrote this..even after all these years..I should not make light of the tragic loss of 9/11..
Time does not make it ok for me to say this...
in not making it light....
Bush was the sentry on 9/11 ...
It was Bush that let it happen...

Since no one's posting any ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Since no one's posting any facts that prove miy facts and arguments wrong, I'll take them as accepted and move on.

How did the Red Chinese develope miniture thermonuclear warheads and MIRVs? Could it have been through the use of the 5 Cray super computers delivered personaly by Clinton himself to our potential enemy?

I don't know. What has the Bush administration has done about this?

They've DOUBLED the amount of hi-tech computers going to China.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_27_18/ai_90114133

Nice quote for you:

"...Republicans harshly condemned Clinton for exporting high-performance computers to China, but President Bush has more than doubled the control threshold on these computers despite existing intelligence estimates that demonstrate how China's national security benefits from such acquisitions."

Got that? More than doubled.

So if Clinton was bad, then Bush is twice as bad, right? I eagerly await your factual and logical response acknowledging this.

Which former American President has made a fortune giving speeches on behalf of the Peoples Republic of China?

I don't know. Now that he's OUT OF OFFICE, how exactly is that bad?

Which President sold pardons on his last days in office?

Hm, let's see. Among the many people George Bush Sr. pardoned, were the 6 people involved in Iran/Contra affair. Why would he do that? Gee, it's almost as if he had something to hide.

http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1992/921224-260039.htm

Then there was also the terrorist bomber Bush Sr. pardoned. He killed an airplane full of innocent people. Bush Sr. not only pardoned him, he made him a full US citizen. Nice.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,851913,00.html

I bet that doesn't bother you. It's got nothing to do with Bush being a Republican, right?

Notice how many times since Bush took office there has been attacks on the US. One, and the source had to move location, after location after location.

Two. You guys always want to forget the Anthrax attacks. Nice try.

Also, for sheer disaster, nothing matches 9/11 - which Bush was warned about repeatedly, including during his month-long August vacation on his magical play-time ranch that has no animals.

But somehow Bush not reading reports and not listening to repeated warnings is Clinton's fault, also. Gosh! How did Clinton gain such awesome psychic powers?

Sorry Jim , The truth ne... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Sorry Jim , The truth needs not to be defended , it just is what it "IS". It just you and your party of incompetant criminal frauds that have a problem with it.

Like I said before , this pack of democrat trash have zero credibility , honesty or integrity regardless of how many times they claim the shy is blue. They are not worth a shit nor should be given the time of day. They belong in Prison , padded rooms or shot at sunrise for they treasonous criminal behavior. The fact that they don't even bother to investigate themselves or discourage corruption proves my point. The entire Party is quilty , not only by association but precisely because they are willing accomplices. To add insult to injury they actively promote the most corrupt to even higher positions of Power. You don't care of have a problem with democrats being completely corrupt and lying frauds so long as they win. That is all that really matters for you.

"If so, then please prove my facts wrong."

I take offense to the very notion. You like your ilk think myself and everyone else not suffering from your mental disease as stupid. Your arrogant plea is completely obsurd and you are completely blind to it.

You have already overstayed your welcome in my head and have just been evicted. Feel free to peddle "YOUR FACTS" elsewhere and at the very least show some respect for those bravest and most couragous of Americans who spill their guts so you "Democrats" can be as evil , despicable and as stupid as one can be.

I've said from the beginnin... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

I've said from the beginning that Slick and the Weasel knew. Shrillary said so in a speach a few days after 9-11 and started to tell a lie that they briefed the Bush administration when one of her lackies, sorry assistants, ran out and told her the briefing was never given. She shut up and the speach has been buried by the Slick machine and the antique MSM. Sometimes being half deaf is an asset, you learn to read lips.

I've posted this before but every one ignored it because they're ignorant. The truth will come out but i'll be too late, just a part of the sorry history of the Clintons.

Rant switch on again since ... (Below threshold)
bruce:

Rant switch on again since no one has proven my facts wrong:

As much as I think Bush has squandered the trust given to him by Republican and Democrat Conservatives, I still think Clinton and the liberals are to blame for all of this terrorist mess.

My conservative conspiracy theory stems from the fact that the Clinton Democrat-held White House most likely used the delays caused by Gore's "2000-post-election-result-denial-syndrome" to destroy as much evidence as possible at the White House. Then, when Bush's administration transitioned into power in the last days/minutes before the 2001 inauguration, months after the time that a new president should have transitioned (which is immediately after the 2000 election). Lets face it, everytime the Florida election results were recounted, Bush got more votes...and even less time to have an effective transition.

So it begs the question, what was the Clinton Liberal Democrat White House hiding that they destroyed the ability to use every computer in the White House, when they let Bush's folks in? why give Bush's administration so little time for an effective transition?

It seems the one thing Clinton and his Liberal mafia forgot was the National Security documents. They seemed to forget the documents that showed the Clintons knew alot more about the 9/11 plans than originally denied, and/or how they bungled important opportunities to kill/kidnap Bin Laden or other of his AlQaeda players.

Its quite incredible that Bush's Justice Dept let Clinton's hack, Sandy Berger, commit an act of treason by stealing & destroying National Security documents from the National Archives.

If there ever was a reason to fire Gonzalez, and fault Bush's presidency, it is for dropping the ball on sending Berger to prison for his heinous crime of stealing from the Nat'l Archives, as well as for not telling the American public what was stolen from Nat'l Archives.

As far as Rosie the bigot is concerned, I luv how Rosie agrees with a conspiracy theory that Mel Gibson's anti-semitic father also agrees with, as well as many other anti-american & anti-semitic political leaders and conspiracy theorists: that the US government used computer-guided planes to strike the towers and then send in black ops teams to bring down the buildings.

unfortunately, when a trans-continental jumbo jet slams into a skyscraper, and knocks off fireproofing from structural steel, which in turn exposes the steel to jet fuel that has ignited in confined spaces, there is only one way those buildings will go: straight down.

Since Rosie & the Clintons & the rest of the Liberal Democrat and Republican establishment think the truth should revolve around fixing their messed up lives, all of the world is made to suffer, and to be treated as their playtoy.

The Liberal Establishment's denials and promotion of conspiracy theories are another off-shoot of the 1960s Liberal Generation expecting others to fix their mistakes. Just like America has had to try and heal its damaged societal moral & diplomatic fabric after the 1960s Liberals gave the world the Vietnam defeat, and after the Liberal "free love" fiasco, and after Liberal pop-culture advocated the use of illegal drugs.

Now we have a country who will never be unified in the face of a determined enemy, and we hate the militray veterans who defend our liberties & freedoms.

"Free love" has turned out to be anything but free. We have paid a heavy price and present & future generations will be the ones who suffer the most because of promiscuity & Liberal sexual immorality, which has created new and more powerful STDs, and increased divorce, abortion, and death rates.

And new and more powerful illegal drugs are being created/used all the time, making America's and the Western worlds' youth the laughing stock of the world.

If there is any consiracy it is that the Liberal media conglomerates have put in place a media black out on the horrible failure of their Liberal dogmas and spin these failures as the faults of Conservative morality and diplomacy.

Unfortunately, America never had these failures until Liberals took over the education, policital, and even religious heirarchies in this great country.

Since the Liberals have controlled practically every facet of American life for the last 40 yrs, we have became a diseased and psychotic country not even sure of what the truth is, even when it slams us in the face.

The fruits of this Liberal conspiracy are only one: chaos.

All great societies & cultures never failed from external enemies; they always failed from internal enemies, whose philosophies were founded on perverted and demented moral systems & pacifistic foreign policy theories.

Rant switch off.
cheers.


you are insane.... (Below threshold)
jim:

you are insane.

If by insane you mean "paying attention to facts."

Johnson not liberal? nor Carter?

Did I say they were not liberal? No. I pointed out that in your 'past 40 years' argument, you were

a) ignoring Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush I. Hell of an omission, don't you think?

b) you then tried to claim with a straight face that Nixon and Ford was liberal. Yeah, right. Ford pardoned Nixon, voted against the Freedom of Information Act, and tried to impeach a SCOTUS judge for being too liberal.

c) nor Ford? Ford was the one who did not want the Republicans to have anti-abortion in the 1976 Republican platform.

That automatically makes him a liberal? I guess Giuliani is a liberal then? Barry Goldwater? Maybe to you. But not to most people who use the world liberal.

so since 1967 the USA has been run by conservatives? think about that Jim? do you really believe that? think real hard Jim.

I am not saying that the country's been run exclusively by liberals. Why do you think that's what I'm saying?

Do you really think that our country has been run by liberals for the past 40 years? I've just shown you that it isn't. So, think really hard, yourself.

Then try this on;

It has been ruled by BOTH liberals and conservatives for the past 40 years.

See? It doesn't have to be one or the other. The real world is like that.

we have abortion Jim. Did conservatives push for this?

We also invaded Iraq. And Panama. And had Iran/Contra. Did liberals push for that?

porn is legal Jim? conservatives again?

Anti-drug laws are more stringent than ever. Liberals again?

Hollywood and the entertainment industry Jim? Run by conservatives?

I'm sorry - I thought Rupert Murdoch was conservative. Are you saying he's a liberal?

legalization of drugs Jim? Who is helping push that?

Quite a lot of Libertarians, actually. Who usually vote Republican, because they favor small government.

contraceptives Jim? who wants to hand them out to everyone Jim?

Who's resisting stem cell research? Sorry, which party is that? According to, it's a party that hasn't been in power for the past 6 years, let alone for 4 years under Bush Sr. and 8 under Reagan.

I guess according to you they don't actually exist, because this country has been run exclusively by liberals for the past 40 years.

Late term abortion Jim?

Limiting late-term aborton? Who pushed that?

Gay marriage Jim?

Terri Schiavo? the Medicare debacle? Which party was that?

Not one major university is known for its conservative teaching staff Jim.

Ever heard of Brigham Young?

The world we live in today is a product of the Liberal establishment of the last 40 yrs.

You mean, every part of it that you don't like, you want to BLAME on the 'liberal establishment'.

Come on, man. Just be honest with yourself.

Britain was very weak in prosecuting the War against the U.S. They did not fight it to win, and many members of Parliament were sympathetic to us.

Your arguments were that nations fall ONLY because of being pacifistic in military policy.

Therefore, your own example proves you wrong.

In terms of Carthage, they also had a pacifist crowd that was trying to end war with Rome.

Uh-huh. right. It had nothing to do with having the stuffing knocked out of them by an overwhelmingly stronger nation.

General Hannibal, noted pacifist. right.

And I note that Carthage was actually stronger in the sea, until the Romans were able to take over that advantage by creating a grappling hook that made a sea battle into an infantry battle.

do you really believe this stuff?

Please prove me wrong, and provide a link showing the Carthaginians were pacifists.

Lastly Jim, Sandy Berger admitted to taking documents.

Oh my frakking lord.

You do know the difference between copies and originals, right?

Taking COPIES, and admitting taking ORIGINALS, are as different as taking a picture of the Mona Lisa, and taking the Mona Lisa.

The National Archives was mismanaged and allowed Berger to take important National Security Documents, even originals Jim.

For the last time:

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT BERGER TOOK ANY ORIGINALS.

Got that?

THERE.

IS.

NO.

EVIDENCE.

Once again: There is not one iota of evidence that Berger took any originals.

Furthermore there is no evidence of ANY REASON WHY Berger would take originals.

Why do you hold onto this, in the face of absolutely no evidence?

Please acknowledge reality.

if Berger didnt steal anything important to National Security, why was he supposed to view those documents in a SCIF then?

HUh?

So what if it was a secure facility? This argument makes not one bit of sense.

That's like accusing me of stealing a painting, because I looked at a painting inside a secure museum. No art was found missing, and no museum listings or catalogues have been found to be altered, and no painting was found on my person - but I must have stolen it.

In short, it's a ridiculous argument.

Rob, I emplore you... (Below threshold)
JAW:

Rob,

I emplore you to reconsider your last post because it is the written equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and holding your breath. If you can't see that, then I feel very sorry for you and I would say to Jim that there is nothing more to say at that point.

If you can see the toddler-esque tone to your post upon review, all you need to do is use independent source evidence to refute anything that was said by Jim. So far, I have not seen any actual evidence (here or elsewhere) that supports anything you and Bruce and the others are saying in rebuttal.

Reagan helped cause 9/11. ... (Below threshold)
ec1009:

Reagan helped cause 9/11. It was Reagan who funneled billions of taxpayer dollars to the Afghan mujahadeen/islamofascists in their fight against the Russian athiesto-commie infidels.
Money doled out based on ability to kill Russians and not commitment to moderation or democracy. Crazy mofos generally tend to be more efficient killers.

To be clear:Blowback... (Below threshold)
ec1009:

To be clear:
Blowback is a bitch.
The law of unintended consequences and all that.

Sorry Jim , The truth n... (Below threshold)
jim:

Sorry Jim , The truth needs not to be defended , it just is what it "IS".

Rob's short answer:

a) I am right, and I don't need any facts to prove it; and you wrong, and I don't need any facts to prove it.

b) If my facts are wrong, see (a).

Which makes stuff like this even funnier:

The fact that they don't even bother to investigate themselves or discourage corruption proves my point.

What? Berger is a Democrat, and the Bush admin is Republican, last I checked. Those aren't the same party, right?


"If so, then please prove my facts wrong."

I take offense to the very notion.

HAhahahah hahahahah!!!!!

I bet you do. Well guess what? When you say things that accuse people of being liars, criminals, traitors and worse, some people are going to want evidence for those accusations.

Some would say you should have that evidence to being with.

You have already overstayed your welcome in my head and have just been evicted. Feel free to peddle "YOUR FACTS" elsewhere and at the very least show some respect for those bravest and most couragous of Americans who spill their guts so you "Democrats" can be as evil , despicable and as stupid as one can be.

Whaaaaaaaat???

I have not been disrespectful to the armed forces in any way, whatsoever. And for you to imply that I have, is the worst kind of grandstanding you can do.

Look, I'll cut right to it.... (Below threshold)
jim:

Look, I'll cut right to it.

It seems to me like the people you have been listening to and trust, have been telling you that Sandy Berger stole original documents, and Bill Clinton is responsible for nothing being done about the Cole bombing.

The facts I've cited above show that these statements aren't wrong. But you've been told these things repeatedly. How could that happen?

Well, either of two things are possible:

1) either the people telling you these things didn't know the facts.

2) the people telling you these things knew what the facts were, but LIED to you.

Now, if you heard these from news outlets, it's their JOB to know what the facts are. So # 2 is more likely, according to all logic.

Why would they lie to you?

1) to make you feel better (the 'white lie')

2) to get something they want from you

Whatever the reason - if a salesman told you a car was yellow, had 4 doors, and was great, and you looked at it and found it was green, had 2 doors, and ran terribly - would you trust that salesman?

If not, then I suggest that you be a bit more skeptical to these people who tell you things that AREN'T TRUE ACCORDING TO THE FACTS.

Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, or whoever it is - wherever you got these notions about Berger and Clinton from, the notions are NOT TRUE. I've just SHOWN you how they're not true.

Therefore it should be clear that these people are lying to you. They may make you feel good, but they're selling you something, just like a dishonest car salesman.

Jim, You are a lia... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

Jim,

You are a liar & a fraud. You said since 1967 we have not been a liberally-dominated society and listed presidents who you said were not liberals. You conveniently ignored Johnson. Your fault not mine.

and yes, except Reagan, we have had liberal Presidents since 1967.

Jim, Hannibal was pacified. He did not want to fight anymore. He went into exile. Read history instead of making it up. Also there was a contigent of Carthage who did not want to figth Rome anymore.

Before the Romans destroyed Carthage, Carthage did not the stomach to fight anymore. Hence, Roman came in for the kill. Rome wore them down, just as radical Muslims are wearing you and all your other Liberal Dem & Repub Party members. You are all cowards & traitors in my eyes.

How does my use of the Revolutionary War invalidate my argument? Our Revolutionary War is a classic example of a country that lost a war because of pacifists on the side of the loser. Britain had alot of sympathizers and people who did not want to fight against us.

*****HELLO JIM!!!!!!!!Berger stole original National Security in the National Archives. I am sorry, but you have not proven otherwise. And yes, viewing them in a SCIF proves they were very important and he admitted to stealing the National Security documents.GOODBYE JIM!!!!!!!******

....and yes, the last 40 yrs of chaos is because of Liberal policies of immorality, whether pushed by Liberal Dems or Liberal Repubs. I restated my points because you have not proven me wrong.

The blood of Schiavo is clearly on the hands of Liberal Democrats and Republicans who did nothing to prevent her murder by the state, I also included both Bushes, and those Republicans in Congress that did not do enough to prevent it from happening.

You see the difference between you and me is you defend your cause even when you have liars, frauds, crooks and traitors. I will admit when a Republican is a liar, fraud, crook or traitor because 9 out of 10 times they are Liberal Republicans, therefor closer to your Liberal Democrat party's reprehensible immorality and cowardly diplomacy.

Gonzales is a Liberal Republican and he helped the Liberal Sandy Berger get away with his treasonous crime. Why? probably because he doesnt want it to get out what original documents were stolen or else his bossman Bush will look like a jerk, and Gonzales' butt would be canned.

It would be nice Jim, if you would admit that all the Liberal immorality agendas I listed were heavily promoted and supported by Liberal Democrats and Republicans, as i did.

But you dont seem interested in promoting the truth, only in promoting your Liberal Democrat party line.

My facts are not dependent on any party, Republican or Democrat.

Just truth.

oh and buddy boy.....you threw in a denominational college with the BYU pick.

I was speaking about public universities & institutions, especially since Liberals promote that only institutions that support the seperation of church from state are truly worthy of being considered validly fair & balanced public institutions.
...but you knew that anyway.

cheers mate.

better luck next time.

wink wink heh heh


Clinton gave China #1 Tr... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Clinton gave China #1 Trading status and "exporting high-performance computers to China" you mean "The Democrats' Largest Contributor"

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1998/june98/psrjune98.html

"condemned Clinton for exporting high-performance computers to China,"

Got that ?


This is for Democrats who like to forget:

"Bill Clinton's friend and ubiquitous Democratic fundraiser Johnny Chung told Federal investigators that he funneled nearly $100,000 from the Communist Chinese military to the Democratic campaign in the summer of 1996. The money was handed to Chung by the daughter of the top commander of China's People's Liberation Army, General Liu Huaqing, who was also one of the top five members of the Chinese Communist Party's ruling Politburo.

Chung's liaisons with the Clinton Administration were so cozy that he was able to arrange for the daughter, who goes by the name of Lt. Col. Liu Chaoying, to get a speedy visa and come to America to be photographed with Clinton on July 22, 1996. She is what is called a "princeling," one of the privileged offspring of China's ruling elite. In addition to her title as Lieutenant Colonel in the People's Liberation Army, she is a senior manager and vice president for China Aerospace International Holdings, which is the Hong Kong arm of China Aerospace Corporation, a state-owned jewel in China's military-industrial complex, with interests in satellite technology, rocket launches, and missiles.

Johnny Chung told Federal investigators that Col. Liu actually gave him $300,000, which she said originated with China's military's intelligence arm, and told him to use the money for Democratic campaign contributions. He apparently kept $200,000 for his "businesses." Soon after the picture-taking fundraiser, Col. Liu had Chung open a California branch of Marswell Investing, another of her Hong Kong enterprises, whose chief "business" was parking Chinese money in the United States. She also invested $300,000 in Chung's facsimile business. Chung was quite a hustler; he visited Clinton's White House 49 times.

After fundraising investigations began last year, the Democratic National Committee returned $366,000 to Chung which were suspected of being illegal foreign contributions. Chung has pleaded guilty to campaign-related bank and tax fraud."

a yeah...too bad Car... (Below threshold)
Bruce:


a yeah...too bad Carter, a Lib Dem, started that war in Central Asian war for the USA in Afghanistan, just like Kennedy, another Lib Dem, started that widdle ol war in South East Asia. I see a pattern developing...

but Lib Dems conveniently seem to forget who gets the USA in all these screwed up wars, dont they?

The law of unintended consequences and all that.

Bruce, I don't know if jim ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Bruce, I don't know if jim is a liar and a fraud. I think he is a troll. One who disputes the truth every time it is presented. People like jim would not know the truth if it bit them in the ass. I think I recognize his writing style. They teach writing like his is lying 101 and the University of California at Bizerkly. You are right about Bush not investigating Clintons crimes though. I think it has something to do with his respect for the office of President, and the respect given even if not earned to ones predecessor. This respect is usually only given by Republicans as Democrats don't have the class to exhibit respect for anything. jim is an expample.

Bruce, I don't know if jim ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Bruce, I don't know if jim is a liar and a fraud. I think he is a troll. One who disputes the truth every time it is presented. People like jim would not know the truth if it bit them in the ass. I think I recognize his writing style. They teach writing like his is lying 101 and the University of California at Bizerkly. You are right about Bush not investigating Clintons crimes though. I think it has something to do with his respect for the office of President, and the respect given even if not earned to ones predecessor. This respect is usually only given by Republicans as Democrats don't have the class to exhibit respect for anything. jim is an expample.

Bruce,Your post now ... (Below threshold)
ec1009:

Bruce,
Your post now is a non sequetor because the P.C. police at Whizbang deleted my post. Must not criticize St. Ronnie.
Why do conservatives hate free speach?
Farewell for I expect to be banned soon.

You are a liar & a fraud... (Below threshold)
jim:

You are a liar & a fraud. You said since 1967 we have not been a liberally-dominated society and listed presidents who you said were not liberals. You conveniently ignored Johnson. Your fault not mine.

You said liberals have been running everything for the past 40 years.

40 years = 1967 to 2007.

Nixon came into office in 1968.

Nixon, Ford, Reagan 2 terms, Bush I, Bush II =
4 + 4 + 8 + 4 + 7 = 27 years.

1 year of LBJ + Carter + Clinton =
1+ 4 + 8 = 13 years.

Whatever. Math is so liberal.

Jim, Hannibal was pacified. He did not want to fight anymore.

So that's a result of Carthage's allegedly pacifistic philosophy, how?

Also there was a contigent of Carthage who did not want to figth Rome anymore.

Really? What was there name? When were they in power? What did they make happen or make not happen?

Got facts?

How does my use of the Revolutionary War invalidate my argument? Our Revolutionary War is a classic example of a country that lost a war because of pacifists on the side of the loser.

OK, here's your problem:

You are equating anyone who doesn't want to fight a PARTICULAR war, with people who don't want to fight ANY war because they think ANY war is wrong.

Taht's what 'pacifist' means, you see: people who say ALL war is wrong.

That's why the example proves you wrong. Britain didn't lose because they thought that ALL WAR was wrong. See?

*****HELLO JIM!!!!!!!!Berger stole original National Security in the National Archives. I am sorry, but you have not proven otherwise.

OK, well, if you won't take your own government's word for it, and you have no evidence that he did take it, I honestly don't know what to say.

Believe what you want. Just don't think it's in any way based on any facts whatsoever.

And yes, viewing them in a SCIF proves they were very important and he admitted to stealing the National Security documents.GOODBYE JIM!!!!!!!******

You do understand the difference between copies and originals, right?

You have seen a xerox machine? You know that it makes things which look like originals, but are not?

And then you say some really funny stuff:

You see the difference between you and me is you defend your cause even when you have liars, frauds, crooks and traitors. I will admit when a Republican is a liar, fraud, crook or traitor because 9 out of 10 times they are Liberal Republicans, therefor closer to your Liberal Democrat party's reprehensible immorality and cowardly diplomacy....My facts are not dependent on any party, Republican or Democrat.

Uh-huh.

It just so happens that conservative Republicans are never wrong - and when they are, it's because they're liberals. No bias there at all.

No conservative Republicans have ever done anything wrong - is that really your stance? Does that really make sense to you?

oh and buddy boy.....you threw in a denominational college with the BYU pick.

It's not my fault you over-generalize, and then have to dig a way out of it.

But whatever. Have a good day.

Well, thanks Zeldorf. I don... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well, thanks Zeldorf. I don't know if you and Bruce are liars and frauds either. I think you and Bruce are defiantly clinging to lies you have been told, and things you want to believe in, rather than admit you could possibly be wrong.

And it's a shame. But, it's your choice. I'll just keep showing you the facts, and some day they'll actually break through.

"So far, I have not seen an... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"So far, I have not seen any actual evidence (here or elsewhere) that supports anything you and Bruce and the others are saying in rebuttal."

That's your problem.

Besides it's common practice for democrats to destroy it , hide it , ignore it or just outright deny it.

"I have not seen any actual evidence"

LOL, of course not, because YOU DON'T WANT TOO. Oh the pain!

You chose to be ignorant to all democrat corruption and lies. You'd rather drown in them than ever half to admit to their existence. Sad thing is you would prefer to drown rather than see the death of what has become the most grotesque diabolical Poilital Party in our short history. Now that is just sick.

Last but not least , the simple solution to your dilema is this , OPEN YOUR EYES. That is all.

Rob, please link to any evi... (Below threshold)
jim:

Rob, please link to any evidence that Berger took originals.

Not that he COULD have, but that he did.

Also, do you think that Nixon, Ford and Bush Sr. were all liberals?

Also, do you think Carthage was composed of pacifists who hated all wars of any kind, which is why they lost to Rome? And do you think the British were also pacifists who hated all wars?

Alternately, please show what else I have said here, has been disproven by anything anyone else said here. Here you go. I'm wide open; here's your golden opportunity to show how wrong/lying/crazy I am.

Bruce,The blood of... (Below threshold)
JML:

Bruce,

The blood of Schiavo? Gonzales is liberal?

Wow. I mean WOW!

You're awesome! I've got to hand it to you - I don't think I could have come up with such bullshit even on a good day.

Funny that you mention Schiavo in your defense of conservativism, if that is, in fact, what you are defending. I tend to think of that incident as the straw that broke the camel's back; as in, that was when popular public opinion reached a tipping point and people began to break from the Republicans. I can't think of a more arrogant intrusion by big government into American citizens' private affairs in recent years.

As far as Gonzales's liberalism, you've got to be joking. I bet Gonzales himself would get a good laugh out of that. His entire role (not his actual job) is to defend Bush and Republicans at all costs and operate the judiciary in a manner consistent with the unitary-executive theory so popular among Bushies.

But, hey, I'm glad you're posting here. I can't think of a better way to illustrate just how insane right-wing conservatives have become than to let your comments shine in all their glory.

Jim,

You made a number of well reasoned and supported arguments. Unfortunately, Bruce and Racist Rob are not capable of engaging you in kind. I bet they were home-schooled.

Well thanks JLM.He... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well thanks JLM.

Here's Bruce's secret: any time a Republican does something Bruce can't stand, he just redefines that Republican as a liberal. Then he can still hate liberals, and even blame liberals for things that Republicans do.

I do think they're smart, t... (Below threshold)
jim:

I do think they're smart, though. It's not an issue of intelligence. I just think they have this need to believe - which is just how the Bush administration was so able to hijack this entire Republican party.

I never thought I'd miss George Bush Sr - but man, has his son made a mess of things. If I were conservative, I would resent Bush Jr. just for the damage he's done to the GOP by association.

I have not been disrespe... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

I have not been disrespectful to the armed forces in any way, whatsoever. And for you to imply that I have, is the worst kind of grandstanding you can do.

How sad you are. You insult and undermine their Commander in Cheif with 6 years of non stop lies. You give aid and comfort to those that have beheaded their best of freinds and fellow soldier and drug their desecrated bodies for all to see or hung them from over passes.

No, you haven't done a dam thing to offend those that give their life for you.

You want to shame and make President Bush look bad at any cost.

Bruce said this :

"The law of unintended consequences and all that."

A little fact you chose to ignore.

LML , the POS that calls me a racist. You are a dumbphuck just looking to get a rise , happy now moron?

"You made a number of well reasoned and supported arguments"

Really , like this?

"So far, I have not seen any actual evidence (here or elsewhere) that supports anything you and Bruce and the others are saying in rebuttal."

Since Democrats apply the law or Tranference on to others(Republicans) (we democrats lie therefore so does every one else) , the only thing else left as way of evidence is taken care via the Law of Burger. Destroy all evidence , then stand in place making funny faces and say na na na na you can't get me. It's no coincidence democrats can be seen throwing tantrums like children when they don't get their way.

"I bet they were home-schooled."

I can see how you prefer being indoctrinated as apposed to actually having to do some work and learn something on your own. Vote democrat, it's easier than thinking, your proof of that.

Actually Rob LA Ca, I said ... (Below threshold)
ec1009:

Actually Rob LA Ca, I said "the law of unintended consequenses and all that." Bruce was quoting me but you wouldn't know that because this site is monitored by a coward who deletes posts that are too factually uncomfortable for him. Core conservative values and all that.

My crime was pointing out that the administration of St. Ron gave billions to the Afgahnafreedomfightingtalibanislamofacists.

Rob, you've done everything... (Below threshold)
JAW:

Rob, you've done everything in response to my call for evidence but produce any evidence. Neither you or Bruce have advanced your arguments any further than "I say so, so it must be true" and if anyone questions that solid logic, "you dumb liberals, you're so dumb you have ignored all the evidence I threw in your face." And about the troops, go check out the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans for America site, IAVA.org and let me know, are they not supporting themselves?

And Bruce: Shaivo? That little gem was all I needed to see what I got myself into at this site. Good luck with your alternate reality, fellas.

what a bunch of imbeciles.<... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

what a bunch of imbeciles.

"oh girls...listen to best buddies Jim and JML give each other hand jobs since they dont have facts to refute the evidence."

misery enjoys company I guess. ???

just back-slapping Liberals, spewning their lies over and over again, until they believe them as the truth.

glad I was able to make a few liberal snakes crawl out from under their rocks of lies and cowardice.

*******so Jimbo, in your ridiculous immoral reasoning, it is ok to steal and destroy a National Security document, from the National Archives, as long as it is a copy? Is that right Jimbo? I mean, from what you have been repeating, AD NAUSEUM, that is your reasoning of a treasonous and/or criminal act against the security of the USA. Well well, no wonder you Liberal Demcrats are such traitors & cowards. You think no law can control you and that everything is fair game.********

Now your reasoning becomes alot clearer Jimbo.

so riddle me this Jimbo: if a Rice or a Cheney, did the same thing as Berger, you wouldnt ask for their heads on a platter? you lying & cowardly Liberals would want them hung OR shot!!!!

Why dont you give some REAL facts to support one of your opinions since your such a bright boy? I have mine.

...and your math is way off base too Jimbo.

I stand by my reasoning that Reagan was the only true Conservative president in the last 40 yrs., so 32 of those yrs. were run by Liberal Democrat and Republican presidents.

cheers boyz! better luck next time.

ps
Jimbo, my feathered slippery friend, I notice you still dont have a major public university with a Conservative staff on it, do you? didnt think so. I also see you have no more rebuttal for the injustice perpetrated against Libby and the 2 Mexican-American border patrol guards who did no wrong.

heh JML, you just stepped in your own Liberal friend's bull-twinkies. I am sure, being the "fine-upstanding-mentally-lazy- Liberal" that you are, you will enjoy the free lunch of manure that your mentally distraught & dysfunctional friend deficated. want some sugar on that?

wink wink heh heh

Not interested in your ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Not interested in your games. The party that never gets held accountable yet demands it of others. "When Democrats lied Three million died" Remember that?

Democrat knew their were going to be a masacre. They were OK with the Deaths of Tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands , got that ? When in fact it turned out to be in the millions. Democrats belong nowhere near positions of power , authority or trust, ever. That is all I have to say and the Democrats in action day after day is the evidence you are looking for yet too blind to see.

JAW so glad to meet you mat... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

JAW so glad to meet you mate. and how is your version of reality doin? thanks for nothing mate. cheers.

Rob, You're the on... (Below threshold)
JML:

Rob,

You're the one who introduced the "nappy headed" comment earlier. Are you seriously denying the racist overtones of that phrase, especially in light if the Don Imus fiasco?

You're hilarious. I concur with Jim. You don't present facts, you just call people names. You made an accusation about Democrats applying "the law or Transference" (sic), but you provide nothing to back it up. Why the hell should anyone listen to you?

Since you're so upset about evidence being destroyed, perhaps you can provide us with some insight as to how all of those RNC-related emials went missing at the White House.

I see that I was right about the home-schooling, at least in your case. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like your home was accredited.


"You insult and undermine t... (Below threshold)
barbara:

"You insult and undermine their Commander in Cheif with 6 years of non stop lies. You give aid and comfort to those that have beheaded their best of freinds and fellow soldier and drug their desecrated bodies for all to see or hung them from over passes."

Am I the only one reading this as meaning soldiers have beheaded their best of freinds and fellow soldier? Rob, dude, you... need... to... type... slower.

BTW: Chief is the spelling. And when you mean to say you are - you're, rather than your.

And to Jim and JML. Give it up guys. You're (see the usage now honey?) hitting your (again, proper usage) heads against a brick idiot.

The Schiavo thing was priceless though. I'm still giggling.

I see we have another spell... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

I see we have another spell checker here. If you can figure out what was meant that is really all that is important. jim does not seem to want to take statements by Berger himself admitting he took orginal documents as proof that he did so. My question to you dumb fucks is why did Berger remove any document. As an advisor to the President of the United States. He must have had a clue that doing so was illegal. A man who advises the President surely must know that taking property that does not belong to him is against the law. He must have known the risk he was taking, that if he were caught he was risking his reputation and years of incarceration. What is your take on the jim or any of the other "progressives" infecting this blog?

"this site is monitored by ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"this site is monitored by a coward who deletes posts that are too factually uncomfortable for him._ec1009"

Deleted into thin air? I've had 2 deleted in the past (out of 100s) but the field is left intact and a reason given. But St. Ron might be a special case. Hell, I'd even grant him a solid B (to GW's F).

But my main point: don't beg the admin to ban you and they (probably)won't, i.e. kim (or whoever,) isn't a "coward", it's just the Bush admin has been a tough row to hoe. Personally, I would have triangulated a LONG time ago.

Plus, if you can find a handier and more engaging blog (with traffic and nutballs) to comment upon, let me know. I've looked. There ain't.

kiss-ass mode off! But seriously, give Wiz its props: none of that "copy the letters to comment" crap. Or delayed "reviews" of comments. blechh!

kiss-ass mode off for real this time!

Bryanduh, If I were in char... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Bryanduh, If I were in charge I would delete everything you write. You defend with your last breath the acts of a criminal, that being William Jefferson Clinton and try to criminalize the honorable acts of George Walker Bush. Clinton gave political speeches in churches every time he was in one. If Bush did that, you fucking idiots would go berserk. Clinton fires 93 US attorneys to protect himself from the investigation of one and you say nothing. Bush fires 8 because they are not doing the job he wants them to and you call it a crime. Clinton looks at intelligence about Iraq and declares there must be a regime change. Bush looks at the same evidence, and institutes a regime change and you claim he is a liar. You problem is that had algore had any class at all, when he conceeded the election because he lost Florida, he would not have gone back on his word but then what do you expect from a democrat of that ilk? You dumb fucks are unable to realize you were taken by that snake oil saiesman Bill Clinton, the raper of women, the renter of the Lincoln Bedroom, the seller of pardons and the spokesman for Communist China. No other President in our history has been on the make like that gigalo bill clinton. I will not capitalize his name any longer.

Just love bringing out t... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Just love bringing out the petty in y'all however Barbara did point out an obvious error, my apologies to all our kick ass troops all around the world. You can say that B makes the other two blazing J's look petty and not really paying attention.

"I see that I was right about the home-schooling"

No you are wrong again I mean you're wrong or was it..... no wonder yur a democrat, predictable and easy to manipulate.

You must have wet your panties when you read "nappy headed". All democrats can do is look to capitlize on mistatements to create the next scandal but that has never stopped them from outright making one up out of thin air.


"You made an accusation about Democrats applying "the law or Transference""

Are you going to deny it? Have you been alive the last 6 months? Were you part of that 75% who didn't even know who St. Nuncy of Piglosi was right after the Nov elections? The Democrat Leadership Prove every assertion I made. Democrats are the one who are actually guilty many times over of every false claim they have made against The Republicans.

"Since you're so upset about evidence being destroyed, perhaps you can provide us with some insight as to how all of those RNC-related emials went missing at the White House."

Upset ? Why should I be upset about information being destroyed? The only thing upsetting is that their are Ciminal Lying Frauds whining like children that we must lose this war , in fact many like Barstool Kennedy have been saying it has been lost for years now and how exactly has that supported the troops?

Why should I give a rats ass about RNC emails?

They went missing ? Are you acusing me of having knowledge of a crime just because I'm still registered Democratic? My how prejudice of you.

"I see that I was right......" Funny , you look the same to me as you always do, WRONG. If you could truely see yourself you would look the other way. Sad thing is everywhere you look, there you are.LOL

It's obvious you prefer having your eyes wide shut.

Rob,You're not mak... (Below threshold)
JML:

Rob,

You're not making any sense. Have you been drinking? I see you were up late.

I'd continue this conversation, but you're actually kind of boring. I think I'll go engage some adults on another blog.

Great posts, by the way. You say far more than you realize.

jim does not seem to wan... (Below threshold)

jim does not seem to want to take statements by Berger himself admitting he took orginal documents as proof that he did so.

Would you please give a link to these statements?

the Clinton Democrat-he... (Below threshold)

the Clinton Democrat-held White House most likely used the delays caused by Gore's "2000-post-election-result-denial-syndrome" to destroy as much evidence as possible at the White House.

Uh huh...Evidence of what???

the 2 Mexican-American b... (Below threshold)

the 2 Mexican-American border patrol guards who did no wrong.

They lied about what happened.

the documents that showe... (Below threshold)

the documents that showed the Clintons knew alot more about the 9/11 plans than originally denied

How do you know this?

Historians will figure out ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Historians will figure out what Berger stole. Look, this was a conspiracy, and still is, to hide the truth of what Bill's national security apparatus looked like. It's not as if their work disappeared into a vacuum, and it's not as if Berger found all that they wrote. In fact, I suspected the Rovian surprise last election to be unstolen marginalia from the archives.

Berger, Clarke, Beers, Clinton. They are roasting in hell right now hoping to fool historians. Too late, objective historians see a lot of smoke. It just makes them curious.
==========================

Oh yeah, Joe Wilson, too.<b... (Below threshold)
kim:

Oh yeah, Joe Wilson, too.
==============

JML and Jim,Shut u... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca. MF:

JML and Jim,

Shut up, you liberal democrat party of perpetual frauds! You don't know anything about how the world works and I do! You are the reason we're losing in the Iraq war, the reason hurricane Katrina happened and it is you, yes you, who lost the emails in the Justice Department.

Don't try to trick me up with your wiley ways and your random non-sequiturs. Stop spitting at me with your venomous democrat spittle and your firey democratic evil eyes. Don't try to scare me with your "oh, Rob's homeschooled" twisty twister talk.

I know what you are. You are the devil incarnate and I am oedipus.

*******so Jimbo, in your... (Below threshold)
jim:

*******so Jimbo, in your ridiculous immoral reasoning, it is ok to steal and destroy a National Security document, from the National Archives, as long as it is a copy? Is that right Jimbo? I mean, from what you have been repeating, AD NAUSEUM, that is your reasoning of a treasonous and/or criminal act against the security of the USA. ********

No. Ah, I'll give it one more try here.

You claimed that Berger destroyed original documents, permanently damaging the US historical record to cover up crimes for Clinton. YOu further conclude that this is treason.

I pointed out to you that there is no evidence at all that ANY originals are destroyed, and that destroying copies is not destroying originals.

Destroying copies is absolutely meaningless. You can see that, right? If I xerox a drivers license and then destroy that drivers license, what harm have I done? Zero.

There's your answer, then.

Look, don't get mad at me. You were sold a bill of goods by the people you listen to. They told you and told you and told you again that Sandy Berger was a traitor who destroyed original documents, or whatever else they said.

Those are the people who you believed in, who lied to you. Those are the people you should be mad at. I'm just the one who's pointing out to you the truth.

I stand by my reasoning that Reagan was the only true Conservative president in the last 40 yrs., so 32 of those yrs. were run by Liberal Democrat and Republican presidents.

Say - who did you vote for?

Did you vote for Nixon or Ford, if you were old enough?

Did you vote for Bush I? Did you vote for Bush II both times?

Would you ever under any circumstances vote for a liberal? I'm guessing no.

That would therefore mean you were voting for conservatives. And here's the thing - every single one of those GOP candidates were more conservative than their opponents. Every time.

But if you want to sit there and say that Nixon is a liberal, rather than just admit that you overstated your original argument, that's your choice. I just think that's personally a terrible thing to do. Try admitting you could be wrong, just once. Everyone is wrong some time. Admitting it is good for you.

I also see you have no more rebuttal for the injustice perpetrated against Libby and the 2 Mexican-American border patrol guards who did no wrong.

I didnt' think a rebuttal was necessary.

If you think a government official lying in a court of law is ok, I don't know what to say.

And if you think it's cool for cops to shoot an unarmed fleeing human being in the back, and then lie about it, I *really* don't know what to say.

I know what the founding fathers would have said: completely and totally unacceptable abuse of authority.

In fact, I suspected the... (Below threshold)
jim:

In fact, I suspected the Rovian surprise last election to be unstolen marginalia from the archives.

I'm curious. What surprise was this?

And do you think that will still matter in the coming '08 election? I'm not trying to prove you wrong or right here; I'm more curious what you're referring to.

Quick little blast of truth... (Below threshold)
jim:

Quick little blast of truth about the border guards, that you guys are not getting.

You'll trust this news outlet, right? It's Fox.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244193,00.html


***********

....U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton issued a statement in response to allegations the agents were prosecuted for "just doing their job," saying "nothing could be further from the truth."

"These agents shot someone who they knew to be unarmed and running away," Sutton said. "They destroyed evidence, covered up a crime scene and then filed false reports about what happened. It is shocking that there are people who believe it is OK for agents to shoot an unarmed suspect who is running away."

Sutton said that during the two-and-a-half-week trial, evidence showed that around 1 p.m. on Feb. 17, 2005, Davila initially ran from the agents, but tried to surrender with his empty hands raised after Compean pointed a shotgun at him. When Compean tried to push Davila to the ground with his gun, the agent tripped and fell. Davila then ran toward the Rio Grande River and Mexico. Compean chased Davila, firing at him with his pistol 14 times, pausing once to reload, Sutton said. Ramos shot once and struck Davila in the buttocks.

Neither agent made any further effort to apprehend him, Sutton said, and they threw away the fired shell casings and filed a false report omitting the confrontation.

"If Compean and Ramos truly believed Aldrete [Davila] was a threat, why did they abandon him after shooting him?" Sutton asked. "And if they truly believed the shooting was justified, why did they not report it, leave the scene undisturbed, and let the investigation absolve them? The answer to these questions are simple. The agents knew that Aldrete did not pose a threat as he fled, they knew the shooting was unjustified and unlawful, and they knew an investigation would incriminate them. So they chose to cover up their crimes."

Rob: You're Oedipus? So y... (Below threshold)
barbara:

Rob: You're Oedipus? So you killed you killed your father and unwittingly married your mommy? Then you blinded yourself to walk in darkness forever? Well now, that explains a lot. You're grasp of mythology is equal to your grasp of politics. Blind and stupid is no way to go through life son.

And thanks for clearing up who caused Katrina; is making us lose in Iraq; and deleted those pesky e-mails. JML and Jim, you naughty boys.

Rob: You're Oedipus? So y... (Below threshold)
barbara:

Rob: You're Oedipus? So you killed you killed your father and unwittingly married your mommy? Then you blinded yourself to walk in darkness forever? Well now, that explains a lot. You're grasp of mythology is equal to your grasp of politics. Blind and stupid is no way to go through life son.

And thanks for clearing up who caused Katrina; is making us lose in Iraq; and deleted those pesky e-mails. JML and Jim, you naughty boys.

The following is a transcri... (Below threshold)
alexande:

The following is a transcript of the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US...

....FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

Jimbo, A few more ... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

Jimbo,

A few more factual points that further shoot down your arguments and faulty opinions:

A drivers license does not even come close to a National Security document, that needs to be viewed in a SCIF, at the National Archives. You are comparing apples to oranges bud.

I work with government documents all the time, every day, and the copies are just as important as the originals. they both hold the same important information. I deal in contracts and budgets. If I were to release to a potential bidding contractor, a government contract, before all other potential bidding contractors were to recieve their copies, I would go to jail. And we are nt even dealing with National Security documents here.

We have to also destroy all copies or original budget documents before they are in the trash so that no outside contractor can know my installation's spending budget. why do we do this? because we are in competition from private contractors who are bidding against the government to provide services at my installation. Some contractors, believe it or not, will sift through the governments garbage to see if they can find budget data, and then low-ball their bid, and outbid the government.

Berger is still guilty of treason for stealing and destroying National Security documents from the Nat. Archives. You have not disproven those facts, not in the least. In fact you have only shown how the concept of right and wrong, legal and illegal, is meaningless when talking with a Liberal. All you are concerned with is covering up Berger's serious crime that protects Clinton's legacy & the Liberal Democrat Party, and that he will not be punished for that treasonous act.

I also notice you still cant rebuttal the false charges against Libby and the Border Patrol Agents, as well as provide one single conservative college adminstration in this country. The problems of the USA are all brought about by liberals, such as yourself, Berger, Clinton, as well as Liberal Republicans. Cowards, liars, and traitors, one and all.

For you to use FOXNEWS, which is run by Rupert Murdoch, who is a financial supporter of Hillary Clinton, and not mentioning the other liberals on that network who support the Liberal Democratic party, shows that you only cater to the Liberal point of view. Murdoch, a laissez-faire Capitalist, would sell his mother if it made him a buck.

I see you dont quote FOX when they report how lawmakers and law-abiding Mexican American citizens are demanding a review of this unjust trial that sent those 2 guards to prison. Lib Dems had originally postponed and ignored such requests, but this pot is boiling over and to ignore the injustice could mean Dems will lose votes, soooo guess what Jimbo old bean? CONGRESS IS REOPENING THE CASE!

Here is what the Washington Times said about the issue:

Lawmakers seek review of border agent case
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published August 23, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement

Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill have asked for congressional hearings and reviews by the White House and Justice Department into the conviction of two U.S. Border Patrol agents who shot and wounded a fleeing drug suspect.
The agents, convicted by a federal jury in El Paso in March, face 20 years in prison at a sentencing hearing next month.
"It appears the facts do not add up or justify the length of the sentences for these agents, let alone their conviction on multiple counts," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat. "Border Patrol agents have a difficult and often dangerous job in guarding our nation's borders.
"Undue prosecution of Border Patrol agents could have a chilling effect on their ability to carry out their duties," Mrs. Feinstein said in a letter Monday to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, requesting a full hearing into the matter.
She asked Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales last week to investigate the case. The U.S. attorney's office in El Paso, which reports to the Justice Department, prosecuted the two agents.
In a letter to President Bush, Rep. Walter B. Jones, North Carolina Republican, asked the White House to review the case, saying the prosecution was "outrageous." He said it did nothing but "tie the hands of the Border Patrol and prevent the agency from securing America against a flood of illegal immigrants, drugs, counterfeit goods and, quite possibly, terrorists."
"This demoralizing prosecution puts the rights of illegal smugglers ahead of our homeland security and undermines the critical mission of better enforcing immigration laws," Mr. Jones said. "These two agents should not be made scapegoats for our government's enforcement failures."
A federal jury convicted agents Ignacio Ramos, 37, and Jose Alonso Compean, 28, in March of causing serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, and a civil rights violation. The shooting occurred Feb. 17, 2005, near Fabens, Texas, about 30 miles southeast of El Paso.
Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, a Mexican national, was wounded as he ran from the agents along the Rio Grande after they said he pointed what appeared to be a gun at them as they tried to apprehend him. Nearly 800 pounds of marijuana, worth $1 million, was found in the van that he abandoned at the river's edge, the Border Patrol said.
Mr. Aldrete-Davila, who was given immunity by prosecutors to testify against the agents, also received care at William Beaumont Army Medical Center in El Paso. He is suing the government for $5 million for violating his civil rights.
"The circumstances do not justify the verdict, and these convictions are already having an adverse impact on the Border Patrol," Mrs. Feinstein said.
Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, called for a congressional investigation and open hearings on the case during an immigration field hearing in El Paso. The committee's investigation is expected to begin before the end of the year.
Rep. John Hostettler, Indiana Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, border security and claims, who attended the El Paso hearing, said that if the arrest, trial and conviction of the two Border Patrol agents had resulted in a chilling effect on others, "then it's definitely something we should know about."
Spotted in his van near the Rio Grande, records show that Ramos gave chase while Compean circled around to head off the suspect. When Mr. Aldrete-Davila jumped out of the van and ran south to the river, he was confronted by Compean, who was thrown to the ground as the two men fought. Ramos said that when he arrived, he saw Compean on the ground and chased Mr. Aldrete-Davila to the river, where the suspect suddenly turned toward him, pointing what looked like a gun.
Ramos said he fired at the fleeing suspect but did not think he had been hit after watching him run through the bush, jump into an awaiting van in Mexico and speed off.
An investigator from the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General tracked down Mr. Aldrete-Davila in Mexico, where he was offered immunity in exchange for testimony. The department oversees the Border Patrol.
A U.S. probation officer has recommended in a report to the court that the agents be sentenced to 20 years.

Copyright © 2007 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

__________________________________________________

Where you are correct Jimbo is I am too young to have voted for Nixon & Ford.

I have only voted 3 times since I have been of age to vote: Once for Reagan (since I was too young in 1980) and twice for Bush Jr. All my negative criticism of Bush Jr is based on the large mistakes he has made since his second election victory. Up until that time, Bush Jr., had portrayed himself, and acted like, a Reagan Conservative Republican.

Up until 2-3 years ago Bush Jr. was pro-military, anti-abortion, pro-tax break, etc... then in the middle of his 2nd term, the crap hits the fan. Not decisive enough in Iraq, weak in support of Israel against Hezzbollah, weak leadership with the VA hospital crisis, weak in his SCOTUS choice of Harriet Miers until public outcry caused him to smarten up, weak in providing emergency relief after Katrina, weak in his handling of the Schiavo killing by the state of Florida, weak in making the taxbreak permanent, etc...

I also find Congress even more deficient and fault-worthy then Bush, but that a horse of another color.

try again Jimbo. your almost truthful, but not quite.

wink wink heh heh

A drivers license does n... (Below threshold)
jim:

A drivers license does not even come close to a National Security document, that needs to be viewed in a SCIF, at the National Archives. You are comparing apples to oranges bud.

Wow.

Of course they're not the same - it's a metaphor.

Apples and oranges are both fruit, that grow on trees, can be conveniently held in one hand, etc. etc.

Whatever.

You have chosen to think that Berger has committed treason, and no amount of facts or logical argument will sway you. Thankfully our criminal justice system continues to require evidence.


I deal in contracts and budgets.

Really? Good. So then, if you xerox a contract, and then destroy the xerox, have you destroyed the original?

Yes or no?

If I were to release to a potential bidding contractor, a government contract, before all other potential bidding contractors were to recieve their copies, I would go to jail. And we are nt even dealing with National Security documents here.

Uh-huh. And Berger worked for Clinton. And the documents copied were made by Richard Clarke, for Clinton's review, when he worked for Clinton. So Berger copying stuff that Clinton already knew, and then giving those copies to Clinton, would be like you copying your boss' contracts and giving them to your boss.

So that dog doesn't hunt either.

Try another one.

I also notice you still cant rebuttal the false charges against Libby and the Border Patrol Agents.

Libby lied under oath on the stand to impede a Federal investigation. He was convicted for it.

The Border patrol agents shot an unarmed fleeing man in the back, and tried to cover it up afterwards. They were convicted for it.

So, consider their conviction by a jury of their peers as my rebuttal.

If you don't count a trial by a jury of your peers as a 'rebuttal to false charges', I have nothing more to say.

as well as provide one single conservative college adminstration in this country.

I provided one, Brigham Young. When this disproved your argument, you fell back on another one, that you "really meant" publicly funded schools, even though you didn't include that in your original argument.

Which is the argument - publicly funded or not?

Oh - and how do you define conservative? Since you refer to Nixon as a liberal, your definition isn't clear to me.

Make up your mind and be specific, and then I'll take this argument on.

For you to use FOXNEWS, which is run by Rupert Murdoch...

I'll stop you there. I used Fox News because wingnuts tend to believe Fox. I wanted to show you that even the conservative news outfit Fox had the facts for this story.

You can list another other number of news OPINIONS that you like - but the facts are those border agents shot a fleeing unarmed human being in the back, and tried to cover it up, and were then convicted by a jury of their peers in a court of law.


Here is what the Washington Times said about the issue:

I just read it. Read it again, yourself. Note that it does not have ONE LINE that says the Border patrol agents weren't guilty.

Got that? NOT ONE LINE. Go read it again.

What it does say, is that some people are saying maybe the sentence is too harsh. Which is an entirely separate argument that has nothing to do with WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GUILTY.

As for liberal Presidents, I hate to tell you this, but just because your choice for President let you down, doesn't automatically make him a liberal. I know you want to believe that conservatives can't do anythign wrong. Guess what? He's a conservative, and he lied and swindled you. Because all he really cares about are his rich conservative buddies.

And us liberals TOLD you. We told you and warned you that he was a deceitful, incompetent boob who would screw up everything he touched. Because he wasn't sellign to us, we could look straight at the facts: and he could not be trusted with companies his daddy gave him. Ran every company he was ever given into the ground.

Even then, I have been shocked by how much worse Bush has been than even my most nightmarish expectations. It will take decades to undo the damage that he's done to our nation and the world.

And - sorry, but this is reality - he's a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN.

How could this happen? Well, competence matters. Once of the biggest pro-Bush arguments was that he was a 'manager' - it didn't matter that he didn't know the details, we were told, because he could rely on his advisors.

We can all see how badly that's worked out.

So, sorry, no dice. He's no liberal, by any stretch of the imagination. What he is, is a terrible president who you voted for twice.

Accept this fact, and you will be less likely to be fooled by someone just because they say the right things and wave the flag the way you like it.

I will now show you, one la... (Below threshold)
jim:

I will now show you, one last time, that the record shows that Sandy Berger did not destroy any - meaning ANY AT ALL - original documents.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006534

"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," [Justice Department] 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."

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006521

"...[The Wall St. Journal] called Justice Department Public Integrity chief prosecutor Noel Hillman, who assured us that Mr. Berger did not deny any documents to history. "There is no evidence that he intended to destroy originals," said Mr. Hillman. "There is no evidence that he did destroy originals. We have objectively and affirmatively confirmed that the contents of all the five documents at issue exist today and were made available to the 9/11 Commission."

See?

Got that?

Is there anything at all about that which is unclear?

Can you see that it is absolutely impossible that Berger did any damage to the original documents, in any way whatsoever?

Yes or no?

Jim,Looks like ano... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

Jim,

Looks like another of your metaphors is a piece of mental manure.

To read your answers over the last few days shows why Liberal Democrats see nothing wrong in harming the rights and safety of Americans. Your party is a bunch of traitors and criminals.

Berger stole Classified National Security documents from the National Archives and destroyed them. A Classified National Security document can even be a piece of tissue paper, if what it has written on it is important enough to National Security.

Several reasons why a copy is as important as the original.

First, IF COPIES ARE NOT IMPORTANT, WHY KEEP THEM AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES AT ALL? NOBODY IS GOING TO TAKE THEM OUT. WHY NOT HAND OUT TO EVERYBODY COPIES OF CLASSIFIED NAT'L SECURITY & NAT' L ARCHIVES DOCS?

When people look at Classified National Security docs at the National Archives, the only thing a person can do is make notes on seperate pieces of paper, WHICH ARE THAN TURNED OVER TO THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES. YOU CANNOT EVEN TAKE OUT YOUR NOTES. YOU CANT EVEN MAKE A COPY OF A COPY. IF A COPY IS WORTHLESS, THEN WHY ARE THESE RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE JIMBO? WHY EVEN FINE SOMEONE IF THEY ARE UNIMPORTANT? WHY IS IT THAT EVERYONE ELSE HAS TO FOLLOW THEM BUT A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, LIKE SANDY BERGER?

You quote the DOJ, which are almost all holdovers from Clinton's presidency. Most of them would die to protect Clinton's screwed up legacy, just like you are doing promoting lies and treason with your rebuttals to me.

As far as those in the DOJ that Bush picked, they are also covering up this crime to protect Bush's own screwed up legacy, although Bush's is not as bad as Clinton's, BUT BUSH'S SCREW UP ARE BAD ENOUGH. Do you really think the leaders in the DOJ which Bush has put in place, would want to admit that the Bush administration let something important about National Security, get stolen/destroyed from the Archives, right under his watch, after 9/11?

oh, and to quote the WSJ is another one of your scams to look impartial, because the WSJ supports Bush in his liberal treatment of illegal aliens. So I am not impressed with the WSJ "investigative articles" that you are presenting to support your argument.

Second, in some instances, to destroy photo copies or a xerox is the same as the original, especially when that xerox had notes or any other type of addendum on it.

Third, if the xerox is the only copy and there is no original, you are in big trouble.

Fourth, if I go into a lawyer's or doctor's office, and get caught in the process of stealing copies of original documents, you dont think a lawyer or doctor worth his salt, would want to press serious charges against me? Do you think in pressing charges with the police, he will say "officer go lightly on the crook, he only stole copies of the original files, not the originals." SAY WHAT?????

Ever hear of client/attorney or patient/doctor confidentiality? A copy is even more important then the original in these cases. So if its a National Security document, what do you think of the national confidentiality that is harmed when the copy is destroyed? get the picture Jimbo? I mean how much of a Liberal Party hack can you be pal?

It is treason. plain and simple. And as far as our Justice system, rulings can be reversed, just as the late-term abortion ruling of today so eloquently proves.

to say because two different fruits both grow on trees shows they are the same things is ludicrous and the sign of the same type of mind that killed all those people at Virginia Tech. You think that if a crime or a lie justifies you protecting the Liberal Democrat Party, then it is fair game to excercise criminal activity and lies to protect your Party's reputation.

You agree with the machiavellian philosophy that "the end justifies the means," at all costs. This moral philosophy has evolved to encompass ideas from Marxism and Fascism, that the head of state carries out the moral philosophy on a societal or social level. It is a phrase encompassing two beliefs: (1) that morally wrong actions are sometimes necessary to achieve morally right outcomes, and (2) that actions can only be considered morally right or wrong by virtue of the morality of the outcome.

IN YOUR MIND, if Berger's crime exonerates Clinton's mistakes leading up to 9/11, then it was ok to destroy those National Security documents.

You think you can break any law and should not be severly punished if it saves the Liberal Democrat Party's reputation and power. You are a very sad group of indiviudals.

But I see that the same party that agrees to suck the life out of laws that prevent the destruction of Nationa Archives & Security documents, also agrees with sucking the life out of a baby as soon as its in the birth canal of its mother.

What a sick, evil, and demented political party the Liberal Democrat Party has become. Not one of your candidates is opposed to this evil and diabolical practice. NOT ONE. Now you are the political party of killing human beings as they are being born. Wow, are you guys going to print t-shirts with that party platform item? I am sure they will be popular sellers with the electorate:

"THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY: THE PARTY THAT KILLS BABIES BEING BORN AND DESTROYS COPIES OF NATIONAL SECURITY DOCUMENTS. VOTE FOR THE PARTY THAT DESTROYS YOUR LIFE & LIBERTY, AND SEE HOW HAPPY YOU WILL BECOME!"

Its seems that Liberals just cant stand mistakes, either on paper or in the flesh. You guys are really screwed up.

Bush Jr. is a Liberal Republican President. Until he made his Liberal mistakes, everybody thought he was in the mold of a Reagan. When Justice O'connor was chosen for her track record, she supposed had a Conservative Originalist interpretation of the Constitution. However, once on the SCOTUS, she then began voting liberally. Plain and simple.

Bush Jr. was put in situations that he would have to show if he was a true Conservative or not, and he has failed miserably. You have not showed me how i am wrong in my criticism of him being a liberal in the least. To distratc the argument as if we are just dealing with management skills is ludicrous. Many Reaganite Republicans & Democrats do not see Bush as anything near what a Reaganite Conservative type president should be.

Jimbo, what is really sad while corresponding with you is that although I have truthfully answered all your questions, you have not done the same with my questions. it would be nice if you did. it would be really nice if you finally answered the following question, especially since I have asked it about 5 times now, because it does show what kind of a hypocracy you and the Liberals practice: IF RICE OR CHENEY DID THE SAME TYPE OF CRIME THAT BERGER COMMITTED, EVEN IF IT WAS YOUR VERSION OF ONLY STEALING & DESTROYING "COPIES" OF NAT'L SECURITY DOCUMENTS, WHAT PUNISHMENT WOULD YOU EXPECT THEM TO RECEIVE? I know that the present Liberal Dem Party officials would want both of them to be shot or hung. HOW ABOUT YOU JIMBO?

I also still see you cannot come up with a rebuttal for false charges against Libby or against the Border Patrol guards. In both instances their convictions will be overturned. However, it does seem like both parties are in agreement that what the government did, during their trial of the 2 guards was grossly unjust. It was a Lib Dem who caved to concerned Conservatives & Mexican-Americans, and FINALLY allowed the investigation of the Border Guard trial proceedings. i notice you are not quoting Sutton anymore. well, it doesnt matter, because he and the trial judge are in big trouble for suppressing evidence. what do you know about that. That is one of the big reasons Congress is re-opening this case.

yeah Jimbo, you cetainly have your facts straight.

oh and since you seem to think "rich" is associated with "conservative" I guess the Clintons, Edwards, Kerrys, and Gores, are all "conservatives" in your Liberal Democrat frame of mind.

absolutley pathetic.

wink wink heh he

Can you see that it... (Below threshold)
Rob:

Can you see that it is absolutely impossible that Berger did any damage to the original documents, in any way whatsoever?
Yes or no?

No. More dimmie lies! I'm going to put my hands on my ears now and scream "nonneenonneenonnee!!" You'll go to hell for your lies and I will still be right!

First, IF COPIES ARE NOT... (Below threshold)
jim:

First, IF COPIES ARE NOT IMPORTANT, WHY KEEP THEM AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES AT ALL? NOBODY IS GOING TO TAKE THEM OUT. WHY NOT HAND OUT TO EVERYBODY COPIES OF CLASSIFIED NAT'L SECURITY & NAT' L ARCHIVES DOCS?

Now you are arguing something entirely different.

I want you to realize this.

Making copies and destroying copies, is not the same as destroying originals to destroy evidence - which is your original accusation of Berger.

Do you UNDERSTAND the difference between destroying copies and destroying originals? Yes or no?


Fourth, if I go into a lawyer's or doctor's office, and get caught in the process of stealing copies of original documents, you dont think a lawyer or doctor worth his salt, would want to press serious charges against me?

Of course they would. And if you were convicted, you might have to pay a fine - like Sandy Berger did.

Are you arguing that Sandy Berger WASN'T caught, and that he DIDN'T pay a fine?

to say because two different fruits both grow on trees shows they are the same things is ludicrous and the sign of the same type of mind that killed all those people at Virginia Tech.

Oh my lord. You cannot be serious. OK. This statement of yours is not even worthy of discussion.


IN YOUR MIND, if Berger's crime exonerates Clinton's mistakes leading up to 9/11, then it was ok to destroy those National Security documents.

Whaaaaaattt???

We've already proven Berger didn't destroy originals!!!

HOW IN HEAVEN, HELL OR TEXAS can Berger cover up for Clinton by DESTROYING COPIES that BERGER MADE, HIMSELF, THAT DAY????

Please explain how Berger destroying copies he made that day, covers up for Clinton.

I can't wait to hear this.

Bruce, I'll make this simpl... (Below threshold)
jim:

Bruce, I'll make this simple for you:

1) What ideas and policies define a liberal, and what ideas and policies defines a conservative, in your mind?

I just want to know, so we can even have a valid discussion.

2) How does Berger destroying copies mean Berger destroyed originals?

3) How could Berger cover up for Clinton unless he destroyed originals?

4) do you have any FACTS that dispute these facts:

a) Libby was convicted by a jury of his peers
b) the Border Guards were convicted by a jury of their peers

5) you also said this:

"if you destroy a Xerox and there is no original, then you're in trouble."

Please explain how Sandy Berger could make a copy of an original, if there is no original.

You also said this, which i... (Below threshold)
jim:

You also said this, which is quite interesting:

IN YOUR MIND, if Berger's crime exonerates Clinton's mistakes leading up to 9/11, then it was ok to destroy those National Security documents.

This interesting because it means that, in YOUR mind, if Berger's crime WAS COMMITTED to cover up Clinton's mistakes, then Clinton must have been guilty for 9/11. Which then means that it wasn't Bush's fault.

Which then means that your beloved GOP didn't elect someone as monumentally callous, immature and negligent as Bush really is.

All of which explains why you are so determined to believe Berger is guilty of something that literally COULD NOT HAPPEN, let alone DID NOT HAPPEN.

Let me repeat that for you:

Sandy Berger COULD NOT cover up for Clinton, even if he wanted to, because he COULD NOT DESTROY THE ORIGINALS. He ONLY DESTROYED COPIES he made THAT SAME DAY HE VISITED THE ARCHIVES.

Please read that above paragraph again, so that you thoroughly understand it. Look especially at the capitalized words COULD NOT.

Now in any future response to my comments, please include at the top of your response how Berger could POSSIBLY COVER UP FOR ***ANYTHING**** by destroying ONLY COPIES HE MADE THE SAME DAY, leaving the originals COMPLETELY UNTOUCHED.

Are we clear?

Is there any part of that which you didn't understand?

IF RICE OR CHENEY DID T... (Below threshold)
jim:

IF RICE OR CHENEY DID THE SAME TYPE OF CRIME THAT BERGER COMMITTED, EVEN IF IT WAS YOUR VERSION OF ONLY STEALING & DESTROYING "COPIES" OF NAT'L SECURITY DOCUMENTS, WHAT PUNISHMENT WOULD YOU EXPECT THEM TO RECEIVE?

If they were found guilty of the same crime, then they should have to pay a $50,000 fine - just like Sandy Berger.

If they are found guilty of the same crime, how do YOU think they should be punished?

And finally, I really hones... (Below threshold)
jim:

And finally, I really honestly don't understand how a jury verdict is a rebuttal of your un-evidenced accusation of "false charges".

The Court hears all the charges presented. The Jury and Judge make a decision on those charges.

I think you don't want to believe this, because you are uncomfortable with the very possibility of conservatives and Republicans doing something wrong.

Guess what? It can happen.

You know what? Prove me wrong. Show me an example of one single man you consider to be a Conservative Republican, who has done something in office that you admit is against the law and wrong.

I confess to not having rea... (Below threshold)
Terry Ott:

I confess to not having read all the comments in this thread. It would be a huge chore to do so.

Coming at this without all the nuances and fine details, here is what has taken me from "much ado about very little" over to "smells fishy, probably IS fishy":

1. Berger made multiple visits to the Archives, not just one as someone here alleged.
2. Berger was alone, unsupervised (against regs) in an office where reviewing documents isn't "allowed".
3. Berger asked the woman whose office he was using to step outside multiple times, so he could talk privately on the phone.
4. Berger left this office numerous times, way more than normal, saying he was using the mens' room.
5. While Berger was in that office, he was rummaging through uncatalogued, uncopied, original notes.
6. Berger literally "snuck" outside with some documents, when the coast was clear and hid them for pickup later.
7. For a while, management in the Archives tried to keep the episode quiet, out of the news.
8. Berger lied about things he subsequently admitted to.
9. Berger destroyed some documents, by his own admission.
10. The 9/11 Commission learned untimely that they'd not gotten the "full story" about Berger's escapade. This was upsetting to them.
11. A polygraph was approved or specified for Berger, but it has not happened, or at least not been revealed.

Look, I don't understand why there would be uncatalogued originals in boxes in the Archives, but that seems to be true. I don't understand why Berger would not be held, or indeed WANT to be held to the same rules as others are in terms of where he would be allowed to set up shot and in terms of being unsupervised for major time intervals.

Now ... if any of my 11 points are NOT accurate, I invite corrections. And if this list, just on its face, doesn't suggest that something is "up", well then I think people are just not opening up their minds to various possibilities.

OK, Terry, here's how it is... (Below threshold)
jim:

OK, Terry, here's how it is:

First, and most importantly, no ORIGINALS of any documents were destroyed.

This has been confirmed by multiple statements of the Prosecutor involved. URL's upstream in this post.

So once again, NO ORIGINALS WERE AFFECTED IN ANY WAY. The historical record is intact, and in fact was never attacked. And no public officials have ever accused Berger of this. This would be on it's face ridiculous - Berger was never even ABLE to destroy originals.

What Sandy Berger was convicted of was making copies and removing them from the archives, which is a violation of national security.

This seems to me to be unfortunately typical lawyer hubris: "Ah, that rule doesn't need to apply to me. My client's seen these documents, they're handy and I don't really feel like trekking in here again next day when I can bill $600/hr from my home office, in front of my TV."

Berger was found guilty of this and fined $50,000.

The 9/11 Commission investigated and confirmed that no originals were destroyed. And in fact it's impossible to see how Berger COULD have destroyed the originals - it seems that the clerks printed out the copies for Berger from scanned copies on a hard drive.

So the points you list are probably true, or likely enough that they aren't worth disputing. It's just important to be clear, however, that they only pertain to COPIES of documents, and the remving of COPIES of classified documents from the archives, which is a technical violation of National Security.

And it's important that Berger destroyed the copies ONLY in that it was a sloppy, lazy way of dealing with the problem, of having classified documents outside of the archives.

YOU MADE THE MISTAKE NOT ME... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

YOU MADE THE MISTAKE NOT ME, Jimbo,

I HAVE ALWAYS CALLED WHAT BERGER DESTROYED AND STOLE CLASSIFIED "NATIONAL SECURITY DOCUMENTS." My original rant is posted below. You have lied about what i said. typical for your criminal and treasonous kind. you seem to think it matters to me if it is an orignal or a copy. to me it does not.

If Berger, Rice,or Cheney did this heinous crime against my country in a time of war THEY SHOULD BE SHOT OR HUNG. LET ME REPEAT SINCE YOU ARE SUCH A FRAUD & A LIAR: IF ANY OFF THEM, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, DID THE CRIME THAT BERGER DID, WHETHER THEY WERE COPIES OR ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, THEY SHOULD BE EXECUTED.

Get my drift mr, machiavelli? everyone should treated equal under the law.

TO REPEAT: who the heck said Berger ONLY stole original documents? those are your words NOT MINE. I SAID HE STOLE & DESTROYED CLASSIFIED "NATIONAL SECURITY DOCUMENTS" FROM THE "NATIONAL ARCHIVES." CANT YOU READ YOU LIBERAL LIAR??? WHAT DONT YOU UNDERSTAND???

....and you are even more of a fraud and a traitor for not answering why is if COPIES OF CLASSIFIED NAT'L SECURITY DOCUMENTS are so innocent & harmless, you cant keep them outside of the Nat'L Archives?

WHY IS IT THAT THE NOTES BERGER TOOK COULD NOT BE TAKEN OUT OF THE ARCHIVES AND YET YOU SAY COPIES ARE OK TO BE DESTROYED?

You are trying to rationalize & minimize your criminal party's treason. Your asinine attitude is "oh well, lighten up, nothing important was taken, ummmm just some photcopies duhhh" duh Jimbo, big duh Jimbo.

I have a big problem with criminals like Berger, Clinton and you. a real big one pal.

How do you know there were no originals destroyed? Berger has never been given a lie-detector test to prove what he did steal & destroy because the lIberal Republican Bush administation is afraid to FIND OUT EXACTLY what was stolen during Bush's watch. I have always admitted Bush is incompetent.

WHAT DONT YOU UNDERSTAND ???!!!! WHY ARE YOU PLAYING SUCH PATHETIC GAMES???? BUSH IS INCOMPETENT!!! BUSH IS INCOMPETENT!!! BUSH IS INCOMPETENT!!! BUSH IS INCOMPETENT!!! BUSH IS INCOMPETENT!!!

WHY DO YOU IGNORE MY DISGUST WITH BUSH WHEN I HAVE REPEATEDLY PUT IT IN WRITING??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!! you are a fraud. plain & simple.

YOU ASSUME NO ORIGINALS WERE DESTROYED YET YOU DONT KNOW THAT FOR A FACT. YOU ACT AS IF YOUR INFALLIBLE AND YET YOU HAVE ABSOLUTLEY NO PROOF.

....with you perverted sense of right & wrong and your idea that the end justifies the means, our country is in very big danger from the Liberal Democratic Party.

I personally believe the DEMOCRATIC PARTY SHOULD BE OUTLAWED AND THOSE WHO COMMIT ESPIONAGE AGAINST OUR GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE EXECUTED, ESPECIALLY FOR STEALING OR DESTROYING CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY DOCUMENTS. plain and simple.

I also believe any foreigner trying to enter our country illegaly and selling illegal drugs deserves to be shot at & killed on site, whether they are armed or not. They represent a danger to our citizens. DRUGS KILL.

I like how you also ignore that even the Libs have caved in to re-open the case of the 2 border guards. SO WHAT IF THEIR PEERS CONVICTED THEM. ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY THE CONVICTION CANNOT BE OVERTURNED? I GUESS IF WE LIVE IN YOUR FACIST STATE, ONCE A VERDICT COMES DOWN FROM A LIBERAL COURT ITS OFF TO PRISON AND NO CHANCE OF A REVERSE DECISION.

UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU, THESE HEROES WILL HAVE THEIR CASES RE-EXAMINED. THE RULING IN BOTH THE 2 GUARDS CASES AND LIBBY'S CASE CAN BE REVERSED. WHETHER YOUR PERVERTED UNDERSTANDING OF OUR COURT SYSTEM KNOWS IT OR NOT.

Just today, the SCOTUS reversed lower judical court rulings and outlawed partial birth abortion. Your side loses again it seems.

you guys dont give a darn except bringing the USA down to being a third world country where the majority of its citizens have no rights and are slaves to a neo-communstic state run my liberal elitists who think everybody else is below their enlightened knowledge of a supposed liberal paradise.

wink wink heh heh

PS STILL WAITING for that "conservative college administration" you say exists. as well as what were the original charges brought against Libby and what was he convicted of? SEEMS LIKE YOU ARE STILL IGNORING THE TRUTH, WHICH IS TYPICAL FOR A CARD CARRYING LIBERAL SUCH AS YOURSELF.

__________________________________________________
ORIGINAL POST
Rant switch on:

As much as I think Bush has squandered the trust given to him by Republican and Democrat Conservatives, I still think Clinton and the liberals are to blame for all of this terrorist mess.

My conservative conspiracy theory stems from the fact that the Clinton Democrat-held White House most likely used the delays caused by Gore's "2000-post-election-result-denial-syndrome" to destroy as much evidence as possible at the White House. Then, when Bush's administration transitioned into power in the last days/minutes before the 2001 inauguration, months after the time that a new president should have transitioned (which is immediately after the 2000 election). Lets face it, everytime the Florida election results were recounted, Bush got more votes...and even less time to have an effective transition.

So it begs the question, what was the Clinton Liberal Democrat White House hiding that they destroyed the ability to use every computer in the White House, when they let Bush's folks in? why give Bush's administration so little time for an effective transition?

It seems the one thing Clinton and his Liberal mafia forgot was the National Security documents. They seemed to forget the documents that showed the Clintons knew alot more about the 9/11 plans than originally denied, and/or how they bungled important opportunities to kill/kidnap Bin Laden or other of his AlQaeda players.

Its quite incredible that Bush's Justice Dept let Clinton's hack, Sandy Berger, commit an act of treason by stealing & destroying National Security documents from the National Archives.

If there ever was a reason to fire Gonzalez, and fault Bush's presidency, it is for dropping the ball on sending Berger to prison for his heinous crime of stealing from the Nat'l Archives, as well as for not telling the American public what was stolen from Nat'l Archives.

As far as Rosie the bigot is concerned, I luv how Rosie agrees with a conspiracy theory that Mel Gibson's anti-semitic father also agrees with, as well as many other anti-american & anti-semitic political leaders and conspiracy theorists: that the US government used computer-guided planes to strike the towers and then send in black ops teams to bring down the buildings.

unfortunately, when a trans-continental jumbo jet slams into a skyscraper, and knocks off fireproofing from structural steel, which in turn exposes the steel to jet fuel that has ignited in confined spaces, there is only one way those buildings will go: straight down.

Since Rosie & the Clintons & the rest of the Liberal Democrat and Republican establishment think the truth should revolve around fixing their messed up lives, all of the world is made to suffer, and to be treated as their playtoy.

The Liberal Establishment's denials and promotion of conspiracy theories are another off-shoot of the 1960s Liberal Generation expecting others to fix their mistakes. Just like America has had to try and heal its damaged societal moral & diplomatic fabric after the 1960s Liberals gave the world the Vietnam defeat, and after the Liberal "free love" fiasco, and after Liberal pop-culture advocated the use of illegal drugs.

Now we have a country who will never be unified in the face of a determined enemy, and we hate the militray veterans who defend our liberties & freedoms.

"Free love" has turned out to be anything but free. We have paid a heavy price and present & future generations will be the ones who suffer the most because of promiscuity & Liberal sexual immorality, which has created new and more powerful STDs, and increased divorce, abortion, and death rates.

And new and more powerful illegal drugs are being created/used all the time, making America's and the Western worlds' youth the laughing stock of the world.

If there is any consiracy it is that the Liberal media conglomerates have put in place a media black out on the horrible failure of their Liberal dogmas and spin these failures as the faults of Conservative morality and diplomacy.

Unfortunately, America never had these failures until Liberals took over the education, policital, and even religious heirarchies in this great country.

Since the Liberals have controlled practically every facet of American life for the last 40 yrs, we have became a diseased and psychotic country not even sure of what the truth is, even when it slams us in the face.

The fruits of this Liberal conspiracy are only one: chaos.

All great societies & cultures never failed from external enemies; they always failed from internal enemies, whose philosophies were founded on perverted and demented moral systems & pacifistic foreign policy theories.

Rant switch off.
cheers.

Posted by: Bruce at April 16, 2007 02:15 PM

In regards to stealing copi... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

In regards to stealing copies of documents from lawyer's or doctor's files, a person would still be guilty of stealing heavily protected documents under the law. They fall under patience/doctor confidentialy protection. NOT EVEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN SIMPLY COPY THOSE FILES. WHY DO YOU THINK THE FEDS CANNOT JUST LOOK AT THE VIRG-TECH KILLER'S MEDICAL RECORDS, EVEN AT PHOTOCOPIES, EVEN AFTER HIS HORRENDOUS CRIMES AND AFTER HE KILLED HIMSELF? AND THESE ARE NOT EVEN NATIONAL SECURITY DOCS.

duh Jimbo, duh.

you really need to get a grip on what is at stake here bud.

cheers

EVEN THE 9/11 COMMISION KNO... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

EVEN THE 9/11 COMMISION KNOWS SOMETHING WAS STOLEN FROM THE ACRHIVES THAT WAS IMPORTANT AND THE DEPT/ OF JSUTICE BUNGLED THE WHOLE CASE.

FROM EVERY LIBERAL'S FAVORITE NEWSPAPER, ESPECIALLY JIMBO THE PRIME LIBERAL TRAITOR AND LIAR, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110009591

Paper Chase
Did investigators turn a blind eye to the seriousness of the Sandy Berger scandal?

Monday, January 29, 2007 12:01 a.m.

Washington scandals are curious things. Sometimes special prosecutors are appointed and the media provide saturation coverage of their doings. An example would be the Valerie Plame episode, which led to this month's perjury trial of Scooter Libby, the former White House aide accused of lying about who first told him Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
Then there are the barely noticed scandals, which prosecutors pursue quietly and professionally. Take the case of Donald Keyser, a former State Department official who last week was sentenced to just over a year in jail for keeping classified documents at his home and for lying about his personal relationship with a Taiwanese diplomat.

Then there is Sandy Berger, the former Clinton national security adviser who pleaded guilty last year to knowingly taking and destroying classified documents from the National Archives while preparing for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. When archives officials caught Mr. Berger, they bizarrely first asked a friend of his, former Clinton White House counsel Bruce Lindsey, for an explanation, rather than contact the Justice Department. After initially lying to investigators, Mr. Berger finally admitted that he took the documents, but only for "personal convenience."

Prosecutors accepted Mr. Berger's assurance that he had taken only five documents from the archives, even though on three of his four visits there he had access to original working papers of the National Security Council for which no adequate inventory exists. Nancy Smith, the archives official who provided the materials to Mr. Berger, said that she would "never know what if any original documents were missing." We have only Mr. Berger's word that he didn't take anything else. The Justice Department secured his agreement to take a polygraph on the matter, but never followed through and administered it.

The issue is still relevant. Officials of the 9/11 Commission are now on record expressing "grave concern" about the materials to which Mr. Berger had access. A report from the National Archives Inspector General last month found he took extraordinary measures to spirit them out of the archives, including hiding them in his pockets and socks. He also went outside without an escort and put some documents under a construction trailer, from where he could later retrieve them.

After archives staff became suspicious of Mr. Berger during his third visit, they numbered some of the documents he looked at. After he left, they reviewed the documents and noted that No. 217 was missing. The next time he came, the staff gave him another copy of 217 with the comment that it had been inadvertently not made available to him during his previous visit. Mr. Berger appropriated the same document again.

What could have been so important for Mr. Berger to take such risks? Was he trying to airbrush history by removing embarrassing information about the Clinton administration's fight against Osama bin Laden? As columnist Ron Cass has noted with dry understatement, "Bill Clinton has great sensitivity to his place in history and to accusations that he did too little to respond to al Qaeda." Last year the former president blew up when Chris Wallace of "Fox News Sunday" asked him, "Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were president?"
Richard Miniter, author of "Losing bin Laden," notes that in 1996 President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan wrote Mr. Clinton a letter offering to hand over bin Laden, then living in Khartoum. A draft of that document was seen on the desk of a Sudanese official by then-U.S. Ambassador Tim Carney. The document itself has never been found, although there is no suggestion it was among the papers Mr. Berger was perusing.

Despite all of these unanswered questions, Mr. Berger was allowed to plead guilty last year to only a misdemeanor charge. As part of a plea agreement, the Justice Department asked him to pay a $10,000 fine for the violations, perform 100 hours of community service and lose his security clearance for just three years (meaning that he will be eligible to regain it just about the time the next president takes office). The presiding judge, outraged at the lenient plea bargain, bumped the fine up to $50,000.

The Inspector General's report found that the papers Mr. Berger took outlined the adequacy of the government's knowledge of terrorist threats in the U.S. in the final months of the Clinton administration--documents that could have been of some interest to the 9/11 Commission, before which Mr. Berger was scheduled to testify. The Washington Post buried news of the Inspector General's report on page 7; the New York Times dumped it on page 36.

But the report did catch the attention of Rep. Tom Davis, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, who last month, while he was still committee chairman, finished his own probe of the Berger affair. This week he and 17 other top Republicans wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to detail the deficiencies the committee has found in the Justice Department's handling of the Berger case. They specifically asked him to administer the polygraph examination that Mr. Berger agreed to but was inexplicably never given.

While a polygraph is not admissible in court, it is a valuable tool investigators can use to lead them to other evidence. Andrew Napolitano, a former judge who is a legal analyst for Fox News, notes: "If they ask him, did you take document X, Y, Z, and he says no, and the polygraph shows that he's lying, that will send them on a hunt for document X, Y, Z." In addition, Mr. Berger would have to take the test under oath and thus could be prosecuted for perjury if he lied, even though his document-theft case is closed.

Philip Zelikow and Daniel Marcus, respectively the executive director and general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, told Mr. Davis's investigators that they were never told Mr. Berger had access to original classified documents for which no copies existed. Had he known, Mr. Zelikow says, he would had "grave concern."
As it was, the 9/11 Commission was not informed of any investigation of Mr. Berger's alleged tampering with documents until only two days before his testimony, and then in only the most vague terms. Not only were the 9/11 Commission not told that Mr. Berger had access to original documents; they were affirmatively led to believe that the commission got all the documents that Mr. Berger took. Both Mr. Zelikow and Mr. Marcus understood Justice to mean that there was no way Mr. Berger had taken any other documents. An investigator for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee bluntly told Fox News last week: "The Justice Department lied to the 9/11 Commission about Sandy Berger. That is a fact." A Justice Department spokesman still insists it "has no evidence that Sandy Berger's actions deprived the 9/11 Commission of documents." But that raises the question: How hard did Justice look for such evidence?

The 9/11 Commission wishes it had known answers to that and more. It's time that Congress and the public learn why the Berger scandal was treated so nonchalantly.


Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

TO REPEAT FOR THE LIBERAL M... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

TO REPEAT FOR THE LIBERAL MIND THAT INHABITS THE ETHER:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110009591

Paper Chase
Did investigators turn a blind eye to the seriousness of the Sandy Berger scandal?

Monday, January 29, 2007 12:01 a.m.

"As it was, the 9/11 Commission was not informed of any investigation of Mr. Berger's alleged tampering with documents until only two days before his testimony, and then in only the most vague terms. Not only were the 9/11 Commission not told that Mr. Berger had access to original documents; they were affirmatively led to believe that the commission got all the documents that Mr. Berger took. Both Mr. Zelikow and Mr. Marcus understood Justice to mean that there was no way Mr. Berger had taken any other documents. An investigator for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee bluntly told Fox News last week: 'The Justice Department lied to the 9/11 Commission about Sandy Berger. That is a fact.' A Justice Department spokesman still insists it 'has no evidence that Sandy Berger's actions deprived the 9/11 Commission of documents.' But that raises the question: How hard did Justice look for such evidence?

The 9/11 Commission wishes it had known answers to that and more. It's time that Congress and the public learn why the Berger scandal was treated so nonchalantly."


Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

DUHHHHHHHHH

FROM FOXNEWS & THE WSJ, THE... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

FROM FOXNEWS & THE WSJ, THE FAVORITE SOURCE FOR INFO BY JIMBO, THE LIBERAL IN RESIDENCE AT WIZBANG:

Paper Chase
Did investigators turn a blind eye to the seriousness of the Sandy Berger scandal?

Monday, January 29, 2007 12:01 a.m.

"Philip Zelikow and Daniel Marcus, respectively the executive director and general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, told Mr. Davis's investigators that they were never told Mr. Berger had access to original classified documents for which no copies existed. Had he known, Mr. Zelikow says, he would had 'grave concern.' "

"Not only were the 9/11 Commission not told that Mr. Berger had access to original documents; they were affirmatively led to believe that the commission got all the documents that Mr. Berger took. "

what Jimbo fails to tell anyone is his links to the WSJ site are 2 years old.

Mine are the WSJ's latest opinion on the facts of Berger's crimes.

case closed folks. THE PEOPLE WHO PROVIDED JIMBO WITH HIS SUPPOSED INFALLIBILITY ON THIS CASE, PRESENTLY BELIEVE BERGER STOLE ALOT MORE THAN JUST "COPIES."

Jimbo's articles are from 6, 8 April 2005, mine are from 29 January 2007.

MORE LIKE THE CASE IS STILL OPEN FOLKS. THIS ISSUE IS FARRRRRR FROM OVER FOLKS. FAR FROM OVER.

wink wink heh heh

Responding to "jim" here. ... (Below threshold)
Terry Ott:

Responding to "jim" here.

A key point, contrary to what you contend, is my impression (growing from statements of Archives staff) that Berger DID indeed have direct access to lots of original material on at least one of his visits, consisting of notes and working papers (whose? I don't know) He went through at his leisure and during a good portion of that time he was not "supervised".

Are you denying this? Do I have it wrong?

And, I also think this was not known until some time AFTER the pronouncements (those probably in your links) that Berger was looking at copies, not originals. I think he was looking at both.

What papers that he went through were not previously copied and catalogued? I don't know.

I worked in a big consulting firm for many years and every document produced for clients, plus most "official" materials (correspondence, files, etc) given to our firm for use in the projects WERE copied and catalogued, meticulously. Some was microfilmed, some was on disks. But, in addition, a consultant was encouraged to turn in all of his notes and working papers and drafts and analyses made in the course of the work --- and those were stored (uncopied) so that they could be accessed later by interested parties in order to reconstruct things if that became necessary. It's a paper trail of how the consultants got to their final work products (meaning the "formal" stuff that was all copied and catalogued), and NEVER was to be removed. Much of this information would be sensitive (dealing with personnel and compensation issues) and much of it would give strategic insights into the clients' businesses.

That foregoing paragraph is offered only as an example of how a library or archives can be custodian of various kinds of "data", some of it private and "unofficial" in the sense it was not part of the formal reports and recommendations.

Let's say the consulting firm was in danger of being sued by a client for damages arising out of the consulting work performed. A consultant then might be VERY interested in going through that "informal" uncopied material with an eye toward removing things that might be incriminating or embarrassing that could reflect on the quality and soundness of the work performed. It COULD be done (but I am not aware that it ever happened in our firm).

Now, if one goes through the 11 points I made in my initial post, and I still think they are all accurate, and NOT come around to thinking that Sandy Berger COULD indeed have removed material and destroyed it, original material that was uncopied, then I contend that one would be less than candid or openminded about what might have transpired, and what might have disapperared forever.

As I said, it looks fishy to me.

Terry, it is my understandi... (Below threshold)
jim:

Terry, it is my understanding that it simply isn't possible for Sandy Berger to have touched any original files in the archives.

This is my understanding because the news sources I quoted above indicate that the copies Mr. Berger viewed were printed out from hard drives at the Archives, for Mr. Berger by the clerks.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006534
(same URL I posted upthread, earlier.)

The clerks apparently weren't keeping track of the copies of the documents at first, and then apparently noticed that Berger wasn't being watched and may have just been putting them in his briefcase rather than return the copies for destruction by the clerks.

They then began keeping track of the copies they made, and noticed that some copies weren't being returned for destruction. This meant to the clerks that Mr. Berger was probably taking them outside the Archive.

What really settles it for me, is that the Justice Dep't Prosecutor himself stated all the above, and goes further to state firmly and unequivocably that NO originals were destroyed, and there was never even any suspiction of INTENT to destroy originals.

OK, Bruce.You stat... (Below threshold)
jim:

OK, Bruce.

You stated that Berger destroyed documents to protect the Clinton Administration.

To think that Berger (or anyone) could protect ANYONE by destroying COPIES, while leaving ORIGINALS alone, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

So I thought you must be thinking Berger destroyed originals.

But fine. Let's say that you meant that Berger destroyed COPIES of documents, while leaving ORIGINALS alone and untouched.

Please explain - how can only destroying COPIES of documents while leaving the ORIGINALS alone POSSBILY get Clinton off the hook?

Terry. I take back my earli... (Below threshold)
jim:

Terry. I take back my earlier post. It turns out Berger did have some access to some originals.

The Archives staff has stated that in most cases Berger was given photocopies to review, and that all originals he was given access to are there.

Also, all documents the 9/11 Commission wanted to see were made available.

SO - as the situation remains, there is no evidence that Berger did anything more than be stupid and destroy copies. I guess it comes down to whether or not you want to believe a vast left-and-right conspiracy working together to make Clinton look good.

Bruce, as usual your linked... (Below threshold)
jim:

Bruce, as usual your linked article doesn't prove what you want to think it proves.

That opinion article is a simple rehashing of previous baseless speculation with no evidence.

In other words, it says: "Berger might have stole documents - where's the evidence?"

And you seem to think this is the same as:

"Berger definitely stole documents, here's the evidence."

And it's clear why you think this: you really want to believe it.

Fine. I'm done playing with you about Berger. Like I said before, believe whatever you want. You will anyway. Just don't think it's in any way based on facts.

On that string of thousand-word non-answers you posted, this in particular caught my eye:

"Get my drift mr, machiavelli? everyone should treated equal under the law.

Really? Cool. So when would you like to appoint an independent counsel, to conduct a multi-year, $40 million investigation into the current President?

Yeah, right. I won't hold my breath.

And here's another:

I like how you also ignore that even the Libs have caved in to re-open the case of the 2 border guards. SO WHAT IF THEIR PEERS CONVICTED THEM. ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY THE CONVICTION CANNOT BE OVERTURNED? I GUESS IF WE LIVE IN YOUR FACIST STATE, ONCE A VERDICT COMES DOWN FROM A LIBERAL COURT ITS OFF TO PRISON AND NO CHANCE OF A REVERSE DECISION.

You are writing volumes that are not in my head.

Bruce, they were convicted. That means they're guilty. If the case is overturned, it must either be based on new evidence or a new ruling. In that case they become not guilty. See? Easy.

It won't bother me if the border guards are found innocent, because of new evidence. IF they are innocent, they deserve to not be charged with the crime.

The current evidence shows they shot a fleeing unarmed man in the back,and then lied to cover up the evidence.

Answer two straight questions for me, Bruce:

Do you think that cops should be able to shoot fleeing unarmed men in the back? Yes or no?

Do you think government officials should be able to lie to Federal investigators? Yes or no?

I await you direct response.

MIght as well point this ou... (Below threshold)
jim:

MIght as well point this out here again, Bruce, because you missed this too in your rant:

PS STILL WAITING for that "conservative college administration" you say exists.

In the middle of your pointless insults, you ignored My question. I'm still awaiting a response from YOU before I go into that argument.

I'll post it again:

Which is the argument - publicly funded or not?

Oh - and how do you define conservative? Since you refer to Nixon as a liberal, your definition isn't clear to me.

Make up your mind and be specific, and then I'll take this argument on.

Is that clear enough?

You define what you mean by "conservative", and you decide if you're referring to publicly funded schools or not, and I'll take this argument on.

Until you make this decision, me taking on this argument is a waste of time. Because since you actually define Nixon, Gerald Ford and Bush II as "liberal", I have no idea what you think conservative really means.

Your move.

jim:I appreciate you... (Below threshold)
Terry Ott:

jim:
I appreciate your retracting the point you made re: Berger not having access to original docs, including MANY that were not catalogued and could not be traced if they WERE removed. My guess (just a guess) is that the "documents" Berger would have the MOST interest in, actually, would be the stuff that had been put in boxes -- staff office files. The "official" stuff would probably have been sanitized anyway before becoming a matter of record.

You say: "SO - as the situation remains, there is no evidence that Berger did anything more than be stupid and destroy copies. I guess it comes down to whether or not you want to believe a vast left-and-right conspiracy working together to make Clinton look good."

First off, what aspect of Berger's life makes it plausible that he would just be "stupid" and do something so egregiously illegal (putting his reputation and career at risk) without motive? Clinton himself was/is brilliant, and why would he abide a key person who was "stupid-prone"?

No, I don't want to believe there is a vast conspiracy to make Clinton look good, as you surmise. I am simply piecing together facts and seeing if they add up to anything problematic. And I've not been convinced by the facts that we know all we should (or even COULD) know about this remarkable chain of events. Most of my friends dismiss this matter out of hand, as you did, but I think they are wrong to do so.

This is an intriquing story, so I decided to dig into it more than I usually would. I'm not a full-fledged political junkie; I like baseball WAY better than politics. Here is what I did, and what I would invite you to do if you haven't:

1. Of course, read all the major articles and op-ed pieces about this. (I went to the trouble of putting in a Google Alert for "Sandy Berger" so as not to overlook new stuff that might come out).

2. Read the (seriously redacted) "Memorandum of Interview or Activity", a personal interview of Berger dated 7/9/05, which was agreed to as part of his plea agreeement. The citation is: www.fas.org/spg/othergov/berger.pdf

3. Read the January 9, 2007 US House of Representatives Staff Report entitled: "Sandy Berger Theft of Classified Documents: Unanswered Questions". This was done by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. I found it very informative and well written, and it has been commented on extensively elsewhere. If I were in charge of the National Archives, I'd resign as a result of this butt kicking.

The conclusion one really HAS to reach, in my opinion, from this material is: there was an inappropriate withholding of information, and there's more we SHOULD know about than has even now been released. Whose backside is being covered? I'm not ready to allege this is simply a "protect Clinton" thing --- it could at this point be a "protect Bush" thing as well. I have little use for either of those two administrations.

I wish I were an investigative reporter with a reputation to make. I think there is something fishy and it needs to be poked around in by someone who is not shy about asking serious questions and finding people who may know more.

Well, Terry I"m happy to lo... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well, Terry I"m happy to look into it, inasmuch as I care.

But it occurs to me that trying to prove Berger *didn't* do anything, is like trying to prove you or I didn't do anything.

Nothing's missing, so there's no evidence any crime was committed. No evidence has been found that Berger was even trying to commit a crime. The prosecutor in the case says there's no evidence any crime was committed.

What we basically do have are a lot of people who are suspicious of Berger and of Clinton. Of course, you could also say that others are arguing because they like and approve of Berger and Clinton.

The impartial people whose job is to look at the evidence, the Justice Dep't, and the 9/11 Commission, have both exonerated Berger of any suspicion at all.

So that's kind of how I take it. The justice system is there for a reason: to enforce impartiality and get to the truth, when there are strong feelings on either side of the case.

So that's my take on things.

Thanks for your cordial discussion of this, by the way. It's very welcome.

Unfortunately Jimbo, you ar... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

Unfortunately Jimbo, you are such a liar and coward you will never answer me directly.

I HAVE ALWAYS SAID REAGAN WAS MY IDEA OF A TRUE CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT. WHEN HAVE I SAID OTHERWISE?

I have always said my choice of Bush Jr was when his record showed him to be a Reagan Conservative-type President. Again, when have I said otherwise?

Also, I have always said FIND ONE CONSERVATIVE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATION. I TOLD YOU A SECTARIAN COLLEGE, LIKE BYU, IS NT WHAT I MEAN. WHAT DONT YOU GET????

You are AGAIN lying about MY links.

You seem to say YOUR WSJ links are based on fact, BUT YOURS ARE NOT. YOUR LINKS ARE 2 YRS OLD, 2005, but mine are current, as of 2007.

yet you say my links are based on hearsay and yours are not. oh really????????????????????????? .

So you can use the WSJ links and I cant?

Its the same editorial staff and they are bringing FACT INTO THE ARGUMENT.

You have to be the poster child for a Liberal liar, traitor & coward. YOU DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH IN THIS CASE ONE BIT.

You simply didnt like that this scandal paints your party even more corrupt than it already has been since Clinton was President. You agree that the Liberal Democratic Party has every right to trample on the laws that protect the citizens of the USA. You words have proven that.

You think a simple slap on the wrist for stealing & destroying CLASSIFIED government documents, DEALNG WITH NATIONAL SECURITY, AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, is "ok."

And to answer another one of your questions, AGAIN: YES!!!!!I would support a $40,000,000.00 investigation into the Bush Administration as to why Bush's DOJ dropped the ball/covered up this heinous crime of treason by Berger, Clinton and the Liberal Democrats.

I guess I have to also bring this up AGAIN:

YOU SEE JIMBO, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU AND ME IS YOUR A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT PARTY HACK. YOU DO NOT CARE FOR THE TRUTH. IF YOU DID, YOU WOULD HAVE POSTED ONE OUNCE OF TRUTH, BUT YOU HAVENT. NOT ONE. I DO NOT CARE IF THE REPUBLICAN, OR EVEN CONSERVATIVE PARTY ARE WRONG, IF IN FACT THEY COMMITED A CRIME, THEY SHOULD BE PUNISHED. YOU WISH TO COVER THE CRIMES OF THE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT PARTY THAT REPRESENTS YOUR PERVERTED AND TREASONOUS MENTALITY.

IF A PARTY THAT REPRESENTS MY POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IS PROVEN TO BE GUILTY OF A CRIME, THEY DESERVE TO BE PUNISHED WITH THE FULL WEIGHT OF THE LAW. NO GIFTS NOR LENIENCY. THE FULL WIEGHT. see Jimbo, its all "yes or no," plain & simple.

for you and the Democrats, its all spin spin spin...

as i have repeatedly said, and is proven by my debate with you, all of these miscarriages of justice carried out by Liberal politicians, are FAR FROM OVER.

EVEN THE 9/11 COMMISION KNOWS SOMETHING WAS STOLEN FROM THE ARCHIVES THAT WAS IMPORTANT AND THE DEPT OF JUSTICE BUNGLED THE WHOLE CASE.

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, JIMBO'S FAVORITE NEWSPAPER(ESPECIALLY SINCE THE LIBERAL NYTIMES & WASHINGTON POST BURIED THE STORY). THIS IS THEIR LATEST OPINION, BASED ON THE LATEST FACTS IN THE CASE, WHICH SUPERCEDE JIMBO'S OUTDATED LINKS:

Paper Chase
Did investigators turn a blind eye to the seriousness of the Sandy Berger scandal?

Monday, January 29, 2007 12:01 a.m.

Washington scandals are curious things. Sometimes special prosecutors are appointed and the media provide saturation coverage of their doings. An example would be the Valerie Plame episode, which led to this month's perjury trial of Scooter Libby, the former White House aide accused of lying about who first told him Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

Then there are the barely noticed scandals, which prosecutors pursue quietly and professionally. Take the case of Donald Keyser, a former State Department official who last week was sentenced to just over a year in jail for keeping classified documents at his home and for lying about his personal relationship with a Taiwanese diplomat.

Then there is Sandy Berger, the former Clinton national security adviser who pleaded guilty last year to knowingly taking and destroying classified documents from the National Archives while preparing for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. When archives officials caught Mr. Berger, they bizarrely first asked a friend of his, former Clinton White House counsel Bruce Lindsey, for an explanation, rather than contact the Justice Department. After initially lying to investigators, Mr. Berger finally admitted that he took the documents, but only for "personal convenience."

Prosecutors accepted Mr. Berger's assurance that he had taken only five documents from the archives, even though on three of his four visits there he had access to original working papers of the National Security Council for which no adequate inventory exists. Nancy Smith, the archives official who provided the materials to Mr. Berger, said that she would "never know what if any original documents were missing." We have only Mr. Berger's word that he didn't take anything else. The Justice Department secured his agreement to take a polygraph on the matter, but never followed through and administered it.

The issue is still relevant. Officials of the 9/11 Commission are now on record expressing "grave concern" about the materials to which Mr. Berger had access. A report from the National Archives Inspector General last month found he took extraordinary measures to spirit them out of the archives, including hiding them in his pockets and socks. He also went outside without an escort and put some documents under a construction trailer, from where he could later retrieve them.

After archives staff became suspicious of Mr. Berger during his third visit, they numbered some of the documents he looked at. After he left, they reviewed the documents and noted that No. 217 was missing. The next time he came, the staff gave him another copy of 217 with the comment that it had been inadvertently not made available to him during his previous visit. Mr. Berger appropriated the same document again.

What could have been so important for Mr. Berger to take such risks? Was he trying to airbrush history by removing embarrassing information about the Clinton administration's fight against Osama bin Laden? As columnist Ron Cass has noted with dry understatement, "Bill Clinton has great sensitivity to his place in history and to accusations that he did too little to respond to al Qaeda." Last year the former president blew up when Chris Wallace of "Fox News Sunday" asked him, "Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were president?"

Richard Miniter, author of "Losing bin Laden," notes that in 1996 President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan wrote Mr. Clinton a letter offering to hand over bin Laden, then living in Khartoum. A draft of that document was seen on the desk of a Sudanese official by then-U.S. Ambassador Tim Carney. The document itself has never been found, although there is no suggestion it was among the papers Mr. Berger was perusing.

Despite all of these unanswered questions, Mr. Berger was allowed to plead guilty last year to only a misdemeanor charge. As part of a plea agreement, the Justice Department asked him to pay a $10,000 fine for the violations, perform 100 hours of community service and lose his security clearance for just three years (meaning that he will be eligible to regain it just about the time the next president takes office). The presiding judge, outraged at the lenient plea bargain, bumped the fine up to $50,000.

The Inspector General's report found that the papers Mr. Berger took outlined the adequacy of the government's knowledge of terrorist threats in the U.S. in the final months of the Clinton administration--documents that could have been of some interest to the 9/11 Commission, before which Mr. Berger was scheduled to testify. The Washington Post buried news of the Inspector General's report on page 7; the New York Times dumped it on page 36.

But the report did catch the attention of Rep. Tom Davis, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, who last month, while he was still committee chairman, finished his own probe of the Berger affair. This week he and 17 other top Republicans wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to detail the deficiencies the committee has found in the Justice Department's handling of the Berger case. They specifically asked him to administer the polygraph examination that Mr. Berger agreed to but was inexplicably never given.

While a polygraph is not admissible in court, it is a valuable tool investigators can use to lead them to other evidence. Andrew Napolitano, a former judge who is a legal analyst for Fox News, notes: "If they ask him, did you take document X, Y, Z, and he says no, and the polygraph shows that he's lying, that will send them on a hunt for document X, Y, Z." In addition, Mr. Berger would have to take the test under oath and thus could be prosecuted for perjury if he lied, even though his document-theft case is closed.

Philip Zelikow and Daniel Marcus, respectively the executive director and general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, told Mr. Davis's investigators that they were never told Mr. Berger had access to original classified documents for which no copies existed. Had he known, Mr. Zelikow says, he would had "grave concern."

As it was, the 9/11 Commission was not informed of any investigation of Mr. Berger's alleged tampering with documents until only two days before his testimony, and then in only the most vague terms. Not only were the 9/11 Commission not told that Mr. Berger had access to original documents; they were affirmatively led to believe that the commission got all the documents that Mr. Berger took. Both Mr. Zelikow and Mr. Marcus understood Justice to mean that there was no way Mr. Berger had taken any other documents. An investigator for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee bluntly told Fox News last week: "The Justice Department lied to the 9/11 Commission about Sandy Berger. That is a fact." A Justice Department spokesman still insists it "has no evidence that Sandy Berger's actions deprived the 9/11 Commission of documents." But that raises the question: How hard did Justice look for such evidence?

The 9/11 Commission wishes it had known answers to that and more. It's time that Congress and the public learn why the Berger scandal was treated so nonchalantly.

Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

__________________________________________________

PS

and the icing on the cake:

you are allowed to make a mistake to a grand jury but not lie.

The original charge against Libby was "he outed a supposed covert CIA agent's identity, and then lied to cover it up."

The trial proved that Libby did not out the agent or lie about it.

The trial supposedly proved that he made a mistake in remembering when he 1st heard about Plame's identity and that therefore that consitutes a "lie against the Special Prosecutor."

Yet, Tim Russert ALSO LIED, OOPS, I MEAN MADE A MISTAKE, OR WAS IT "DIDNT ACCCURATELY RECALL THE EVENTS IN QUESTION," AND RUSSERT WAS NOT CHARGED WITH CONTEMPT OF COURT, OR FOR MISLEADING THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, LET ALONE A JAIL SENTENCE.

From the March 7, 2007 Washington Post:


Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, former CIA official Robert Grenier, NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert and former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer each gave accounts of their interactions with Libby or other journalists that conflicted with their earlier statements or with the recollections of others besides Libby.

"Almost every witness would misspeak on direct [questioning] or left something out of grand jury testimony or got a date wrong," said Ty Cobb, a former assistant U.S. attorney who heads the white-collar criminal defense group at Hogan & Hartson. He expressed skepticism that the case against Libby should have been presented to a jury.
__________________________________________

NO, I do not agree with lying to a special prosecutor or grand jury.

But Libby was not proven to have lied, he made a mistake like all the other witnesses inteviewed by Fitzgerald. The conviction against Libby was simply Liberals venting anger at Bush for not doing what they wanted him to. Fitzgerald & the Liberals didnt like the Iraq war, so they took it out on Libby, an innocent man. As well as even bringing up the Iraq war in the trial, to a Washington DC area jury, which is blatantly anti-war.

So will the Liberals and Fitzgerald now go after Armitage for outing the CIA agent? what about Joe Wilson for his mistakes about the Niger information as well as when his wife was first "outed?" all this came out in the trail. These men also lied to the government and/or withheld important information from the government.

from the Chcago Sun-Times, March 11, 2007

"As for Scooter Libby, he faces up to 25 years in jail for the crime of failing to remember when he first heard the name of Valerie Plame -- whether by accident or intent no one can ever say for sure. But we also know that Joe Wilson failed to remember that his original briefing to the CIA after getting back from Niger was significantly different from the way he characterized it in his op-ed in the New York Times. We do know that the contemptible Armitage failed to come forward and clear the air as his colleagues were smeared for months on end. We do know that his boss Colin Powell sat by as the very character of the administration was corroded.

And we know that Patrick Fitzgerald knew all this and more as he frittered away the years, and the ''political blood lust'' (as National Review's Rich Lowry calls it) grew ever more disconnected from humdrum reality. The cloud over the White House is Fitzgerald's, and his closing remarks to the jury were highly revealing. If he dislikes Bush and Cheney and the Iraq war, whoopee: Run against them, or donate to the Democrats, or get a talk-radio show. Instead, he chose in full knowledge of the truth to maintain artificially a three-year cloud over the White House while the anti-Bush left frantically mistook its salivating for the first drops of a downpour. The result is the disgrace of Scooter Libby. Big deal. Patrick Fitzgerald's disgrace is the greater, and a huge victory not for justice or the law but for the criminalization of politics.
__________________________________________________


....and yet, this is what supposedly brought down the Bush Jr. administration? all you got was a guy named "Scooter Libby" unjustly convicted on diferent charges of what he was originally charged with. go figure. LIBERAL DEMOCRAT JUSTICE. spin spin spin

and yet Berger can take Classified National Security documents and never replace them back in the National Archives, as the WSJ proved:

The Inspector General's report found that the papers Mr. Berger took outlined the adequacy of the government's knowledge of terrorist threats in the U.S. in the final months of the Clinton administration--documents that could have been of some interest to the 9/11 Commission, before which Mr. Berger was scheduled to testify.

Sadly the 9/11 Commision never got to see those now destroyed terrorist documents during their hearings.

according to Jimbo, "oh well, stuff like that happens I guess."

yeah "he guesses" has been his tactics all week. Just guessing, and no facts.

"oh well"

wink wink heh heh

I'm a very moderate, non-co... (Below threshold)
Terry Ott:

I'm a very moderate, non-confrontational, "get along" kind of person; too much so according to some who know me. I'm also an analytical person.

So, when I take a position on something it's usually a rather cautious, "benefit of the doubt" kind of position.

So it is in this case. All I can say for sure is that "things don't add up".

Here's another thing that sticks in my head. When Clinton was told about this matter, I think he quickly said something like: "Well, that's typical Sandy --- kind of confused and disorganized." I thought that quip was very curious and my antenna went up. Why wouldn't Clinton say something like, "That sounds like a serious matter, and I can't IMAGINE how Sandy Berger would think that what he did was OK, or be so unclear about what he did and didn't do."

I'm a very moderate, non-co... (Below threshold)
Terry Ott:

I'm a very moderate, non-confrontational, "get along" kind of person; too much so according to some who know me. I'm also an analytical person.

So, when I take a position on something it's usually a rather cautious, "benefit of the doubt" kind of position.

So it is in this case. All I can say for sure is that "things don't add up".

Here's another thing that sticks in my head. When Clinton was told about this matter, I think he quickly said something like: "Well, that's typical Sandy --- kind of confused and disorganized." I thought that quip was very curious and my antenna went up. Why wouldn't Clinton say something like, "That sounds like a serious matter, and I can't IMAGINE how Sandy Berger would think that what he did was OK, or be so unclear about what he did and didn't do."

Bruce, your continued time-... (Below threshold)
jim:

Bruce, your continued time-wasting has become tiresome.

I have not insulted you once, but you continue to find a need to insult me. Why is that?

I have asked you to define conservative, so I can even know what you mean. You have repeatedly refused to do this. Why is that? Is it because you don't have a definition?

You refuse to acknowledge that the journal article you've posted has not one new item of information, only speculation. Why is that?

You refuse to point out one single item of the articles I've posted, as being wrong. Why is that?

I guess I'll wade through your latest wad of text, one final time here.

I HAVE ALWAYS SAID REAGAN WAS MY IDEA OF A TRUE CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT. WHEN HAVE I SAID OTHERWISE?

When have I said that Reagan was NOT your idea of a true conservative president?

What are you even arguing?

Whatever it is, it's something in your head that has nothing to do with what I've said. I want you to be clear about this. This is something you're putting in the conversation taht I did not say.

My question is what defines conservative for you, in terms of policies and ideas?

Define what you think of as conservative, and then I'll take on your 'schools' argument.

And to answer another one of your questions, AGAIN: YES!!!!!I would support a $40,000,000.00 investigation into the Bush Administration as to why Bush's DOJ dropped the ball/covered up this heinous crime of treason by Berger, Clinton and the Liberal Democrats.

That wasn't my question, at all. Nice try to change it, though. My question is, would you support a wide-ranging Whitewater-style investigation, into everything the Bush administration did in the past including 10-year-old real estate deals?

EVEN THE 9/11 COMMISION KNOWS SOMETHING WAS STOLEN FROM THE ARCHIVES THAT WAS IMPORTANT AND THE DEPT OF JUSTICE BUNGLED THE WHOLE CASE.

Bruce, just because it's CAPITALIZED, doesn't make it any more true.

They know this, do they? it's a fact? Funny how your article you post below, doesn't show they know anything. Funny how any sentence that has suspicion in it, ends in a question mark.

See, Bruce - when something ends in a "question mark", that's because it's a "question". Do you understand what a question is? It's something that isn't known for sure.

Once it's known for sure, then it becomes a statement, and you put a period at the end.

Are we clear?

Now read the article you've posted again. Really read it. And look at the question marks. See, the question marks occur where the writer DOESN'T KNOW the answer. That's because if the writer said he did know, and couldn't back it up, he could get sued for libel.

See, like this:

Did investigators turn a blind eye to the seriousness of the Sandy Berger scandal?

Then 2 paragraphs of info that don't concern Sandy Berger or the Archives incident.

Then a 1 paragraph recap of how Berger pled guilty to removing and destroying COPIES.

Then a 1 paragraph recap of other known facts. See? They end in periods. They're not questions. Also they aren't new.

Prosecutors accepted Mr. Berger's assurance that he had taken only five documents from the archives, even though on three of his four visits there he had access to original working papers of the National Security Council for which no adequate inventory exists. Nancy Smith, the archives official who provided the materials to Mr. Berger, said that she would "never know what if any original documents were missing." We have only Mr. Berger's word that he didn't take anything else. The Justice Department secured his agreement to take a polygraph on the matter, but never followed through and administered it.

OK? Those are all facts. And they aren't knew. All these facts are dealt with previously.

Another 2 paragraph of facts which have nothing new. A member of the 9/11 Commission expresses "grave concern". So? I can express "grave concern" about whether or not UFO's exist. Does that count as evidence they exist? No.

And now the questions. See how different they are? They end in question marks.

What could have been so important for Mr. Berger to take such risks? Was he trying to airbrush history by removing embarrassing information about the Clinton administration's fight against Osama bin Laden?

No evidence. Only speculation. See?

Then 2 paragraphs about Bill Clinton, with no new facts. A document from Sudan is mentioned - and the writer then specifically mentions that it is NOT considered to be one that Berger even looked at.

Then another 5 paragraphs of known facts, with no new evidence.

Then we come to this:

A Justice Department spokesman still insists it "has no evidence that Sandy Berger's actions deprived the 9/11 Commission of documents." But that raises the question: How hard did Justice look for such evidence?

See? It's a question.

I can ask a question too. "Did Bush kill my puppy?" Does that prove Bush did it? No - it's a question.

I don't know how to break it down any simpler for you than that.

you are allowed to make a mistake to a grand jury but not lie.

Whatever.

Libby has the best lawyers that money can buy. He was tried before a jury of his peers. If his case was unfair, then it will be overturned. If not, he's guilty.

And that's the case whether or not you want to believe he's innocent. And that's all there is to it. That's reality.

and yet Berger can take Classified National Security documents and never replace them back in the National Archives, as the WSJ proved:

Jesus H. Frakking Christ. COPIES. Do you get it? COPIES. You claim to understand the difference between originals and copies.

The 9//1 Commission never got to see them because THEY'RE COPIES. They don't matter. The 9/11 Commission saw other copies of the same freaking documents.

But whatever. I've wasted more than enough time and electrons trying to show you facts, Bruce, that you refuse to see. The way you continue to cling to already disproven conclusions confirms that.

So, I'm done here.

Bruce, believe whatever you want to believe.

Well, Terry, suspicions are... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well, Terry, suspicions are fine.

I'll just say that there is no evidence that an actual crime was committed.

And suspicion that a crime could have occurred, does not mean that a crime did occur.

Let along that Sandy Berger was guilty of committing this crime that isn't known to have occurred; and let alone that Sandy Berger committed this unknown crime to protect Bill Clinton of other unknown crimes.

And let me be crystal clear... (Below threshold)
jim:

And let me be crystal clear: the crime taht Sandy Berger is not known to have committed, is the hypothetical crime of having destroyed originals.

The crime which Berger is guilty of, is having made removed copies of already existing copies without authorization.

Sorry Jim, the WSJ... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

Sorry Jim,

the WSJ and the 9/11 comission prove you wrong. The crime Berger committed was for having removed and destroyed Classified National Security documents from the National Archives, that were unable to be presented to the 9/11 Commission, thanks to his treasonous destruction of those documents.

yet you think its ok, so I guess no crime was committed, and therefor you are also a traitor for thinking this form of espionage is acceptable.

Also, Jimbo, prove where the 9/11 stated they saw the documents that were destroyed?

I also gave you several times Ronald Reagan as my idea of a Conservative Republican president, and a typical conservative in general. How many times to I have to repeat that answer? are you some kind of illegal alien who doesnt understand english.

SPEAKING OF INSULTS...YOU SHOULD KNOW. you have insulted me several times by not showing proof for anything you have stated, and for ignoring my answers to you, AS WELL AS MY IGNORING QUESTIONS. HENCE NO CONSERVATIVE UNIVERSITY ANSWER, HENCE NO LIBBY REBUTTAL, HENCE NO BORDER GUARD REBUTTAL.

you are pathetic, a liar, a fraud and a traitor. a hypothetical crime you say? so what was the fine for mr. loser? YOU ARE THE OPITOME OF A HYPOCRITE AND A LIAR.

FROM THE WSJ ARTICLE:

As it was, the 9/11 Commission was not informed of any investigation of Mr. Berger's alleged tampering with documents until only two days before his testimony, and then in only the most vague terms. Not only were the 9/11 Commission not told that Mr. Berger had access to original documents; they were affirmatively led to believe that the commission got all the documents that Mr. Berger took. Both Mr. Zelikow and Mr. Marcus understood Justice to mean that there was no way Mr. Berger had taken any other documents. An investigator for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee bluntly told Fox News last week: "The Justice Department lied to the 9/11 Commission about Sandy Berger. That is a fact."

sorry charlie your wrong.

and yes a 10 yr whitewater investigation would be good INTO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, considering its a 8 yrs presidency, sure why not, whatever you say. YOU BEEN MAKING THINGS UP AS YOU GO ALONG ANYWAY.

Jimbo, you dont even know what your saying anymore.

later jerk.

wink wink heh heh


Sorry Jim,the W... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

Sorry Jim,

the WSJ and the 9/11 comission prove you wrong. The crime Berger committed was for having removed and destroyed Classified National Security documents from the National Archives, that were unable to be presented to the 9/11 Commission, thanks to his treasonous destruction of those documents.

yet you think its ok, so I guess no crime was committed, and therefor you are also a traitor for thinking this form of espionage is acceptable.

Also, Jimbo, prove where the 9/11 stated they saw the documents that were destroyed?

I also gave you several times Ronald Reagan as my idea of a Conservative Republican president, and a typical conservative in general. How many times to I have to repeat that answer? are you some kind of illegal alien who doesnt understand english?

SPEAKING OF INSULTS...YOU SHOULD KNOW. you have insulted me several times by not showing proof for anything you have stated, and for ignoring my answers to you, AS WELL AS IGNORING MY QUESTIONS. HENCE YOU GAVE NO CONSERVATIVE UNIVERSITY ANSWER, HENCE NO LIBBY REBUTTAL, HENCE NO BORDER GUARD REBUTTAL.

you are pathetic, a liar, a fraud and a traitor. a hypothetical crime you say? so what was the fine given to berger, if "no hypothetical crime was committed," for mr. loser? YOU ARE THE OPITOME OF A HYPOCRITE AND A LIAR.

FROM THE WSJ ARTICLE:

As it was, the 9/11 Commission was not informed of any investigation of Mr. Berger's alleged tampering with documents until only two days before his testimony, and then in only the most vague terms. Not only were the 9/11 Commission not told that Mr. Berger had access to original documents; they were affirmatively led to believe that the commission got all the documents that Mr. Berger took. Both Mr. Zelikow and Mr. Marcus understood Justice to mean that there was no way Mr. Berger had taken any other documents. An investigator for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee bluntly told Fox News last week: "The Justice Department lied to the 9/11 Commission about Sandy Berger. That is a fact."

sorry charlie your wrong.

and yes a 10 yr whitewater investigation would be good INTO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, considering its a 8 yrs presidency, sure why not, whatever you say. YOU BEEN MAKING THINGS UP AS YOU GO ALONG ANYWAY.

Jimbo, you dont even know what your saying anymore.

later jerk.

wink wink heh heh

the WSJ and the 9/11 com... (Below threshold)
jim:

the WSJ and the 9/11 comission prove you wrong. The crime Berger committed was for having removed and destroyed Classified National Security documents from the National Archives, that were unable to be presented to the 9/11 Commission, thanks to his treasonous destruction of those documents.

Right. Except that

a) they were copies, not originals, and
b) you're wrong, the 9/11 commission was able to see all the documents, and were not able to cite any documents they could not see
c) so, actually, you're absolutely wrong.

My citation for this info is right below, in answer to your next question.

Also, Jimbo, prove where the 9/11 stated they saw the documents that were destroyed?

My post is upstream. Sigh. But you know what? I'll post it here again. One last freakin' time.

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006521

"...[The Wall St. Journal] called Justice Department Public Integrity chief prosecutor Noel Hillman, who assured us that Mr. Berger did not deny any documents to history. "There is no evidence that he intended to destroy originals," said Mr. Hillman. "There is no evidence that he did destroy originals. We have objectively and affirmatively confirmed that the contents of all the five documents at issue exist today and were made available to the 9/11 Commission."

See that above? I posted it ALREADY in this thread. This time I've highlighted in bold what you should read. I hope you get it this time. I'm sure you can if you really try.

And nothing you have posted has DISPROVEN this assertion. The most any of your citations have done, is cite some people having "grave concern".

As I've already shown to you.

I also gave you several times Ronald Reagan as my idea of a Conservative Republican president, and a typical conservative in general. How many times to I have to repeat that answer? are you some kind of illegal alien who doesnt understand english?

This part is actually really funny.

I've already told you several times why that doesn't answer my question. I will now really break it down for you, so that I (hopefully) will actualyl get through.

a) conservatism is an ideology.
b) an ideology is made up of ideas
c) to say a certain man is your "ideal conservative", does not answer the question of what conservative means to you.

I already know you love Ronald Reagan. That's not my question at all. Understand?

Here is my exact question again:

What IDEAS AND POLICIES do you associate with conservatism?

And just so you don't answer "ronald reagan" again - I'm sure there are things Reagan did which you DON'T think are associate with conservatism.

For instance, political corruption (remember Ed Meese?), or illegally negotiating with terrorists, and secretly selling weapons systems to nations who hate us and want to kill us (remember Iran-Contra?).

SPEAKING OF INSULTS...YOU SHOULD KNOW. you have insulted me several times by not showing proof for anything you have stated,

Uh-huh. Except for every single article I've posted on Sandy Berger, all the lines of your articles that Iv'e shown prove the opposite of what you think, the Fox news article on the Border Guards, I haven't shown you any proof.

Wow.

and for ignoring my answers to you, AS WELL AS IGNORING MY QUESTIONS. HENCE YOU GAVE NO CONSERVATIVE UNIVERSITY ANSWER, HENCE NO LIBBY REBUTTAL, HENCE NO BORDER GUARD REBUTTAL.

What would you accept as a rebuttal to Libby and the Border guards case?

If you won't accept the jury trial in a court of law as proof that they're not innocent, what would actually prove it to you?

If you are defiantly determined not to be swayed by evidence, I really don't know what to say.

Their conviction in two different courts of law by juries of their peers is my rebuttal. That's all you need. It disproves you utterly. Don't get mad at me. That's reality.

As for the university question, I am only telling you one time more. I really hope I can get through to you this time.

a) I cannot give you a meaningful answer to your conservative university question, until I have a definition of what conservative means to you.

b) your current definition is baffling to me, because you define Reagan as a conservative but Nixon, Ford and the current Bush II as liberals.

c) your attempt to define 'conservative' as 'like Ronald Reagan' doesn't make sense. Conservatism existed before Ronald Reagan. Is Barry Goldwater a conservative, to you? Is Dick Cheney a conservative, to you? Is Herbert Hoover a conservative, to you?

Your posting below of a disproven article, that has the same speculation without any facts, shows to me you simply are not worth engaging in discussion any more.

Please prove me wrong. Give me a definition of what conservative means to you, that is actually useful.
sorry charlie your wrong.

Please show exactly what lines from what you posted show that Berger actually stole originals, or even attempted to alter the historical record, or actually resulted in one single document not being viewed by the 9/11 Commission.

and yes a 10 yr whitewater investigation would be good INTO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, considering its a 8 yrs presidency, sure why not, whatever you say. YOU BEEN MAKING THINGS UP AS YOU GO ALONG ANYWAY.

Hey Bruce - read it again. I meant the Whitewater land deal was done in the 1980's, years before Bill Clinton got into presidential office.

That you didn't understand what I was saying, makes this next line especially ironic:

Jimbo, you dont even know what your saying anymore.

Speak for yourself.

Whatever. From this point on, I will ignore any posts of yours that do not:

a) actually define what the hell you mean by conservative
b) actually introduce any actual factual proof that Berger destroyed any originals
c) actually introduce any actual proof that Berger prevented the 9/11 commission from receiving any information

Have a nice weekend, in spite of it all.

Jim, your emails are the bi... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

Jim, your emails are the biggest insults I have ever experienced. complete political party trash. Jimbo, even you said "what I meant was," so you know that you have not been very clear. dude, you dont even know what your saying anymore.

I have already answered you mulitple times. You insult me by continuing to lie that you have not seen my answers. You are simply too stupid and too much of a Liberal Democrat hack to have a response to them.

It doesnt matter if they were originals or copies, they were Classified National Security Documents from the National Archives, that were stolen and destroyed and therefor prevented from being seen by the 9/11 Commission.

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?


YOUR LINK DOESNT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT WAS STOLEN, WHICH BERGER IN FACT ADMITTED TO. HE SIMPLY DID NOT SAY EVERYTHING THAT WAS STOLEN AND THAT IS WHY HE AGREED TO GIVE MORE INFORMATION DURING THE LIE-DETECTOR TEST. THE DEPT OF JUSTICE SIMPLY DOESNT WANT TO ASK FOR THE OTHER DOCUMENTS BECAUSE IT WILL EMBARASS THEIR BOSS, PRES. BUSH, WHICH WILL THEN ALLOW BERGER TO BE PARDONED BY A POSSIBLE CLINTON PRESIDENCY IN 2008, AND NEVER HAVE TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH TEST. DUHHHHHHHHHHHH

JIMBO, YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF THAT THE 9/11 COMMISION SAW WHAT BERGER STOLE & DESTROYED. BERGER PREVENTED THAT FROM HAPPENING. UNFORTUNATELY YOUR WSJ ARTICLE IS TWO YEARS OLD, AND THE WSJ 2007 ARTICLE AND 9/11 COMMISSION DISAGREE WITH THEIR EARLIER OPINIONS. THEY NOW BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009591

While a polygraph is not admissible in court, it is a valuable tool investigators can use to lead them to other evidence. Andrew Napolitano, a former judge who is a legal analyst for Fox News, notes: "If they ask him, did you take document X, Y, Z, and he says no, and the polygraph shows that he's lying, that will send them on a hunt for document X, Y, Z." In addition, Mr. Berger would have to take the test under oath and thus could be prosecuted for perjury if he lied, even though his document-theft case is closed.

Philip Zelikow and Daniel Marcus, respectively the executive director and general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, told Mr. Davis's investigators that they were never told Mr. Berger had access to original classified documents for which no copies existed. Had he known, Mr. Zelikow says, he would had "grave concern."

As it was, the 9/11 Commission was not informed of any investigation of Mr. Berger's alleged tampering with documents until only two days before his testimony, and then in only the most vague terms. Not only were the 9/11 Commission not told that Mr. Berger had access to original documents; they were affirmatively led to believe that the commission got all the documents that Mr. Berger took. Both Mr. Zelikow and Mr. Marcus understood Justice to mean that there was no way Mr. Berger had taken any other documents. An investigator for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee bluntly told Fox News last week: "The Justice Department lied to the 9/11 Commission about Sandy Berger. That is a fact."

sorry charlie your wrong. the Justice Dept lied to the 9/11 Commision and the 9/11 Commission and the WSJ have admitted that Dept of Justice, has in fact, lied to everyone.

So Jimbo, what you have just proven is that Liberal Democrats such as yourself, believe Berger did not commit a crime and therefor did not need to admit to stealing anything, AND since nothing was stolen, Berger shouldnt have paid his fine.

GOT IT JIMBO! PERFECTLY CLEAR. ITS OPEN SEASON FOR BEING A TRAITOR AND FOR BEING A CARD CARRYING DEMOCRAT PARTY MEMBER.

thanks Jim for clarifying how ridiculous and treasonous the Liberal Democrat Party truly is.

cheers chump.

wink wink heh heh

PS oh Jimbo, I will wave my question about the colleges because you are too much of a Liberal coward to ever admit THERE ARE NO CONSERVATIVE COLLEGE ADMISTRATIONS IN THE USA.

"duh Bruce, will you please tell me what kind of conservative you mean?" "duh Jimbo, a Reaganite type conservative, duh what dont you understand?" duhhhh duhhhh

...and I still see you have no rebuttal to the injustice that everyone in the Libby trial was allowed to have mistakes in their testimony and yet Libby, who did not lie, nor out a CIA agent, had to got to jail.

I knew if I dug deep enough, that there is always one moronic Liberal on every list who thinks nobody sees the farce their trying to pull, and Jimbo is it. Jimbo the Liberal soldier falling on his sword and then flying into the sunset. farewell sweet prince...I could play you for ever pal.

You dont have the answers because all your peddling are lies and hate and treason. plain & simple.

PSSoh and Jimbo, f... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

PSS

oh and Jimbo, for you not to admit that a trial verdict can NOT be reversed is pathetic. plain pathetic. you are the dumbest Liberal hack I have ever experienced. Just because a trial of ones peers convicts you, doesnt mean those peers could nt have made a mistake, or that the prosecutor made a mistake. If you expect me to accept two trials where alot of improper and unjustice actions were carried out by the prosecution, you can go to hell.

The means to reverse these unjust verdicts is called the "appeals process." duhhhh

moron

Jimbo, prove that the do... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006521

"...[The Wall St. Journal] called Justice Department Public Integrity chief prosecutor Noel Hillman, who assured us that Mr. Berger did not deny any documents to history. "There is no evidence that he intended to destroy originals," said Mr. Hillman. "There is no evidence that he did destroy originals. We have objectively and affirmatively confirmed that the contents of all the five documents at issue exist today and were made available to the 9/11 Commission."

Now:
a) actually define what the hell you mean by conservative
b) actually introduce any actual factual proof that Berger destroyed any originals
c) actually introduce any actual proof that Berger prevented the 9/11 commission from receiving any information

It was a hard choice not to... (Below threshold)
jim:

It was a hard choice not to just ignore your most recent post, because it didn't answer my questions. But, you just pushed my buttons, by asking yet again for another question I just answered.

Bruce, just because you want to believe something is true, doesn't make it true.

We have to go by facts in this world.

No one blames Eisenhower fo... (Below threshold)
Mike Spence:

No one blames Eisenhower for the Bay of Pigs debacle, yet it was under Eisenhower that the entire operation was developed and the Cuban invasion brigade organized. Kennedy greenlighted the start of the failed assault because there was no way to stop it by the time he got into office, the Pentagon, the CIA, and all kinds of other Eisenhower era career types were hell bent for launching it. But Kennedy gets the full responsibility.

So too will history assign GW Bush the full responsibility for 9/11 not being prevented. Not to mention the blunder of Iraq.

But I have no doubt the Republicans would also try to pin the Iraq war on Clinton if they could.

The amusing thing about "loose change" and all the other extravagant 007/Get Smart "inside job" hoo-hah is that no one has figured out how "evil genius" Bush failed to plant WMD's in Iraq. It would have been so simple. Maybe the reason why is buried in the proposal for "Northwoods" LOL!

fine Jimbo. here we go ANS... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

fine Jimbo. here we go ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION AGAIN.

your old data is superceded by mine. Your link is two years old, and mine is from 2007. YOUR SUPPOSED "PROOF" IS A 2 YR OLD WSJ EDITIORAL. MINE IS IN THE LATEST WSJ 2007 EDITORIAL ON THE SUBJECT WITH QUOTES FROM ALL THE MAJOR PLAYERS AND ALL THE LATEST FACTS.

ALSO YOUR REAL LAME IN STILL ASKING WHAT DO I MEAN BY "CONSERVATIVE." YOU MUST BE THE DUMBEST LIBERAL HACK I HAVE EVER CALLED OUT ON THE CARPET. THE DUMBEST. I SAID A REAGANITE CONSERVATIVE IS MY DEFINITION OF A TRUE CONSERVATIVE. HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU NEED TO SEE THAT ANSWER??? ITS PRETTY SAD HOW YOU IGNORE MY ANSWER, WHICH IS ALSO SHOWN BELOW FROM MY LAST POST.

ALSO SINCE YOU DIDNT STILL ANSWER MY QUESTIONS WITH ANY FACTS YOU GET THE ENTIRE MARTINI THROWN IN YOUR FAT FACE AGAIN.

cheers moron.

Jim, your emails are the biggest insults I have ever experienced. complete political party trash. Jimbo, even you said "what I meant was," so you know that you have not been very clear. dude, you dont even know what your saying anymore.

I have already answered you mulitple times. You insult me by continuing to lie that you have not seen my answers. You are simply too stupid and too much of a Liberal Democrat hack to have a response to them.

It doesnt matter if they were originals or copies, they were Classified National Security Documents from the National Archives, that were stolen and destroyed and therefor prevented from being seen by the 9/11 Commission.

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

JIMBO, YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF THAT THE 9/11 COMMISION SAW WHAT BERGER STOLE & DESTROYED. BERGER PREVENTED THAT FROM HAPPENING. UNFORTUNATELY YOUR WSJ ARTICLE IS TWO YEARS OLD, AND THE WSJ 2007 ARTICLE AND 9/11 COMMISSION DISAGREE WITH THEIR EARLIER OPINIONS. THEY NOW BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009591

While a polygraph is not admissible in court, it is a valuable tool investigators can use to lead them to other evidence. Andrew Napolitano, a former judge who is a legal analyst for Fox News, notes: "If they ask him, did you take document X, Y, Z, and he says no, and the polygraph shows that he's lying, that will send them on a hunt for document X, Y, Z." In addition, Mr. Berger would have to take the test under oath and thus could be prosecuted for perjury if he lied, even though his document-theft case is closed.

Philip Zelikow and Daniel Marcus, respectively the executive director and general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, told Mr. Davis's investigators that they were never told Mr. Berger had access to original classified documents for which no copies existed. Had he known, Mr. Zelikow says, he would had "grave concern."

As it was, the 9/11 Commission was not informed of any investigation of Mr. Berger's alleged tampering with documents until only two days before his testimony, and then in only the most vague terms. Not only were the 9/11 Commission not told that Mr. Berger had access to original documents; they were affirmatively led to believe that the commission got all the documents that Mr. Berger took. Both Mr. Zelikow and Mr. Marcus understood Justice to mean that there was no way Mr. Berger had taken any other documents. An investigator for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee bluntly told Fox News last week: "The Justice Department lied to the 9/11 Commission about Sandy Berger. That is a fact."

sorry charlie your wrong. the Justice Dept lied to the 9/11 Commision and the 9/11 Commission and the WSJ have admitted that Dept of Justice, has in fact, lied to everyone.

So Jimbo, what you have just proven is that Liberal Democrats such as yourself, believe Berger did not commit a crime and therefor did not need to admit to stealing anything, AND since nothing was stolen, Berger shouldnt have paid his fine.

GOT IT JIMBO! PERFECTLY CLEAR. ITS OPEN SEASON FOR BEING A TRAITOR AND FOR BEING A CARD CARRYING DEMOCRAT PARTY MEMBER.

thanks Jim for clarifying how ridiculous and treasonous the Liberal Democrat Party truly is.

cheers chump.

wink wink heh heh

PS oh Jimbo, I will wave my question about the colleges because you are too much of a Liberal coward to ever admit THERE ARE NO CONSERVATIVE COLLEGE ADMISTRATIONS IN THE USA.

"duh Bruce, will you please tell me what kind of conservative you mean?" "duh Jimbo, a Reaganite type conservative, duh what dont you understand?" duhhhh duhhhh

...and I still see you have no rebuttal to the injustice that everyone in the Libby trial was allowed to have mistakes in their testimony and yet Libby, who did not lie, nor out a CIA agent, had to got to jail.

I knew if I dug deep enough, that there is always one moronic Liberal on every list who thinks nobody sees the farce their trying to pull, and Jimbo is it. Jimbo the Liberal soldier falling on his sword and then flying into the sunset. farewell sweet prince...I could play you for ever pal.

You dont have the answers because all your peddling are lies and hate and treason. plain & simple.

Posted by Bruce at April 20, 2007 12:47 AM

And lest we forget what set... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

And lest we forget what set off LIBERAL DEM PARTY HACK, JIM, here is the original rant that he couldnt stand.

What is so ironic is that he felt that it wasnt true and thought he could convince the world otherwise. The sad state of the mind of the Liberal Party Hack is he is an elitist who thinks that he and the Liberal Democrat Party are above the law, not to mention, good old common sense. SADLY FOR THE LIBERAL PARTY HACK, HE, & THEY, ARE NOT. and it goes like this:

Rant switch on:

As much as I think Bush has squandered the trust given to him by Republican and Democrat Conservatives, I still think Clinton and the liberals are to blame for all of this terrorist mess.

My conservative conspiracy theory stems from the fact that the Clinton Democrat-held White House most likely used the delays caused by Gore's "2000-post-election-result-denial-syndrome" to destroy as much evidence as possible at the White House. Then, when Bush's administration transitioned into power in the last days/minutes before the 2001 inauguration, months after the time that a new president should have transitioned (which is immediately after the 2000 election). Lets face it, everytime the Florida election results were recounted, Bush got more votes...and even less time to have an effective transition.

So it begs the question, what was the Clinton Liberal Democrat White House hiding that they destroyed the ability to use every computer in the White House, when they let Bush's folks in? why give Bush's administration so little time for an effective transition?

It seems the one thing Clinton and his Liberal mafia forgot was the National Security documents. They seemed to forget the documents that showed the Clintons knew alot more about the 9/11 plans than originally denied, and/or how they bungled important opportunities to kill/kidnap Bin Laden or other of his AlQaeda players.

Its quite incredible that Bush's Justice Dept let Clinton's hack, Sandy Berger, commit an act of treason by stealing & destroying National Security documents from the National Archives.

If there ever was a reason to fire Gonzalez, and fault Bush's presidency, it is for dropping the ball on sending Berger to prison for his heinous crime of stealing from the Nat'l Archives, as well as for not telling the American public what was stolen from Nat'l Archives.

As far as Rosie the bigot is concerned, I luv how Rosie agrees with a conspiracy theory that Mel Gibson's anti-semitic father also agrees with, as well as many other anti-american & anti-semitic political leaders and conspiracy theorists: that the US government used computer-guided planes to strike the towers and then send in black ops teams to bring down the buildings.

unfortunately, when a trans-continental jumbo jet slams into a skyscraper, and knocks off fireproofing from structural steel, which in turn exposes the steel to jet fuel that has ignited in confined spaces, there is only one way those buildings will go: straight down.

Since Rosie & the Clintons & the rest of the Liberal Democrat and Republican establishment think the truth should revolve around fixing their messed up lives, all of the world is made to suffer, and to be treated as their playtoy.

The Liberal Establishment's denials and promotion of conspiracy theories are another off-shoot of the 1960s Liberal Generation expecting others to fix their mistakes. Just like America has had to try and heal its damaged societal moral & diplomatic fabric after the 1960s Liberals gave the world the Vietnam defeat, and after the Liberal "free love" fiasco, and after Liberal pop-culture advocated the use of illegal drugs.

Now we have a country who will never be unified in the face of a determined enemy, and we hate the militray veterans who defend our liberties & freedoms.

"Free love" has turned out to be anything but free. We have paid a heavy price and present & future generations will be the ones who suffer the most because of promiscuity & Liberal sexual immorality, which has created new and more powerful STDs, and increased divorce, abortion, and death rates.

And new and more powerful illegal drugs are being created/used all the time, making America's and the Western worlds' youth the laughing stock of the world.

If there is any consiracy it is that the Liberal media conglomerates have put in place a media black out on the horrible failure of their Liberal dogmas and spin these failures as the faults of Conservative morality and diplomacy.

Unfortunately, America never had these failures until Liberals took over the education, policital, and even religious heirarchies in this great country.

Since the Liberals have controlled practically every facet of American life for the last 40 yrs, we have became a diseased and psychotic country not even sure of what the truth is, even when it slams us in the face.

The fruits of this Liberal conspiracy are only one: chaos.

All great societies & cultures never failed from external enemies; they always failed from internal enemies, whose philosophies were founded on perverted and demented moral systems & pacifistic foreign policy theories.

Rant switch off.
cheers.


Posted by: Bruce at April 16, 2007 02:15 PM

POWER TO THE PEOPLE BABY!

blah blah blah.You... (Below threshold)
jim:

blah blah blah.

Your articles being more recent has no meaning, since those articles do not refute any of the facts I've posted.

I've even taken examples from the articles you've posted, and show they prove me right. You ignore this, forget it as quickly as possible, and then say that your articles are more recent.

I have answered your questions; you have refused to accept my answers but have offered no logic of facts that actually refute them.

Yell as loud as you want. Reality remains reality.

Here, I'll even post it AGA... (Below threshold)
jim:

Here, I'll even post it AGAIN. This will be the third time.

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Here you go. Here's my answer, for the third time.

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006521

"...[The Wall St. Journal] called Justice Department Public Integrity chief prosecutor Noel Hillman, who assured us that Mr. Berger did not deny any documents to history. "There is no evidence that he intended to destroy originals," said Mr. Hillman. "There is no evidence that he did destroy originals. We have objectively and affirmatively confirmed that the contents of all the five documents at issue exist today and were made available to the 9/11 Commission."

See the bolded part? That's the answer to your question. That's the part that proves you wrong.

Try dealing with that particular answer of mine, instead of filling a post with irrelevant noise and then claiming I didn't answer your question.

fine Jimbo. here we go ANSW... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

fine Jimbo. here we go ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION AGAIN.

your old data is superceded by mine. Your link is two years old, and mine is from 2007. YOUR SUPPOSED "PROOF" IS A 2 YR OLD WSJ EDITIORAL. MINE IS IN THE LATEST WSJ 2007 EDITORIAL ON THE SUBJECT WITH QUOTES FROM ALL THE MAJOR PLAYERS AND ALL THE LATEST FACTS.

ALSO YOUR REAL LAME IN STILL ASKING WHAT DO I MEAN BY "CONSERVATIVE." YOU MUST BE THE DUMBEST LIBERAL HACK I HAVE EVER CALLED OUT ON THE CARPET. THE DUMBEST. I SAID A REAGANITE CONSERVATIVE IS MY DEFINITION OF A TRUE CONSERVATIVE. HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU NEED TO SEE THAT ANSWER??? ITS PRETTY SAD HOW YOU IGNORE MY ANSWER, WHICH IS ALSO SHOWN BELOW FROM MY LAST POST.

ALSO SINCE YOU DIDNT STILL ANSWER MY QUESTIONS WITH ANY FACTS YOU GET THE ENTIRE MARTINI THROWN IN YOUR FAT FACE AGAIN.

cheers moron.

Jim, your emails are the biggest insults I have ever experienced. complete political party trash. Jimbo, even you said "what I meant was," so you know that you have not been very clear. dude, you dont even know what your saying anymore.

I have already answered you mulitple times. You insult me by continuing to lie that you have not seen my answers. You are simply too stupid and too much of a Liberal Democrat hack to have a response to them.

It doesnt matter if they were originals or copies, they were Classified National Security Documents from the National Archives, that were stolen and destroyed and therefor prevented from being seen by the 9/11 Commission.

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

JIMBO, YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF THAT THE 9/11 COMMISION SAW WHAT BERGER STOLE & DESTROYED. BERGER PREVENTED THAT FROM HAPPENING. UNFORTUNATELY YOUR WSJ ARTICLE IS TWO YEARS OLD, AND THE WSJ 2007 ARTICLE AND 9/11 COMMISSION DISAGREE WITH THEIR EARLIER OPINIONS. THEY NOW BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009591

While a polygraph is not admissible in court, it is a valuable tool investigators can use to lead them to other evidence. Andrew Napolitano, a former judge who is a legal analyst for Fox News, notes: "If they ask him, did you take document X, Y, Z, and he says no, and the polygraph shows that he's lying, that will send them on a hunt for document X, Y, Z." In addition, Mr. Berger would have to take the test under oath and thus could be prosecuted for perjury if he lied, even though his document-theft case is closed.

Philip Zelikow and Daniel Marcus, respectively the executive director and general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, told Mr. Davis's investigators that they were never told Mr. Berger had access to original classified documents for which no copies existed. Had he known, Mr. Zelikow says, he would had "grave concern."

As it was, the 9/11 Commission was not informed of any investigation of Mr. Berger's alleged tampering with documents until only two days before his testimony, and then in only the most vague terms. Not only were the 9/11 Commission not told that Mr. Berger had access to original documents; they were affirmatively led to believe that the commission got all the documents that Mr. Berger took. Both Mr. Zelikow and Mr. Marcus understood Justice to mean that there was no way Mr. Berger had taken any other documents. An investigator for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee bluntly told Fox News last week: "The Justice Department lied to the 9/11 Commission about Sandy Berger. That is a fact."

sorry charlie your wrong. the Justice Dept lied to the 9/11 Commision and the 9/11 Commission and the WSJ have admitted that Dept of Justice, has in fact, lied to everyone.

So Jimbo, what you have just proven is that Liberal Democrats such as yourself, believe Berger did not commit a crime and therefor did not need to admit to stealing anything, AND since nothing was stolen, Berger shouldnt have paid his fine.

GOT IT JIMBO! PERFECTLY CLEAR. ITS OPEN SEASON FOR BEING A TRAITOR AND FOR BEING A CARD CARRYING DEMOCRAT PARTY MEMBER.

thanks Jim for clarifying how ridiculous and treasonous the Liberal Democrat Party truly is.

cheers chump.

wink wink heh heh

PS oh Jimbo, I will wave my question about the colleges because you are too much of a Liberal coward to ever admit THERE ARE NO CONSERVATIVE COLLEGE ADMISTRATIONS IN THE USA.

"duh Bruce, will you please tell me what kind of conservative you mean?" "duh Jimbo, a Reaganite type conservative, duh what dont you understand?" duhhhh duhhhh

...and I still see you have no rebuttal to the injustice that everyone in the Libby trial was allowed to have mistakes in their testimony and yet Libby, who did not lie, nor out a CIA agent, had to got to jail.

I knew if I dug deep enough, that there is always one moronic Liberal on every list who thinks nobody sees the farce their trying to pull, and Jimbo is it. Jimbo the Liberal soldier falling on his sword and then flying into the sunset. farewell sweet prince...I could play you for ever pal.

You dont have the answers because all your peddling are lies and hate and treason. plain & simple.

Posted by Bruce at April 20, 2007 12:47 AM

Posted by: Bruce at April 20, 2007 02:53 PM

And lest we forget what set... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

And lest we forget what set off LIBERAL DEM PARTY HACK, JIM, here is the original rant that he couldnt stand.

What is so ironic is that he felt that it wasnt true and thought he could convince the world otherwise. The sad state of the mind of the Liberal Party Hack is he is an elitist who thinks that he and the Liberal Democrat Party are above the law, not to mention, good old common sense. SADLY FOR THE LIBERAL PARTY HACK, HE, & THEY, ARE NOT. and it goes like this:

Rant switch on:

As much as I think Bush has squandered the trust given to him by Republican and Democrat Conservatives, I still think Clinton and the liberals are to blame for all of this terrorist mess.

My conservative conspiracy theory stems from the fact that the Clinton Democrat-held White House most likely used the delays caused by Gore's "2000-post-election-result-denial-syndrome" to destroy as much evidence as possible at the White House. Then, when Bush's administration transitioned into power in the last days/minutes before the 2001 inauguration, months after the time that a new president should have transitioned (which is immediately after the 2000 election). Lets face it, everytime the Florida election results were recounted, Bush got more votes...and even less time to have an effective transition.

So it begs the question, what was the Clinton Liberal Democrat White House hiding that they destroyed the ability to use every computer in the White House, when they let Bush's folks in? why give Bush's administration so little time for an effective transition?

It seems the one thing Clinton and his Liberal mafia forgot was the National Security documents. They seemed to forget the documents that showed the Clintons knew alot more about the 9/11 plans than originally denied, and/or how they bungled important opportunities to kill/kidnap Bin Laden or other of his AlQaeda players.

Its quite incredible that Bush's Justice Dept let Clinton's hack, Sandy Berger, commit an act of treason by stealing & destroying National Security documents from the National Archives.

If there ever was a reason to fire Gonzalez, and fault Bush's presidency, it is for dropping the ball on sending Berger to prison for his heinous crime of stealing from the Nat'l Archives, as well as for not telling the American public what was stolen from Nat'l Archives.

As far as Rosie the bigot is concerned, I luv how Rosie agrees with a conspiracy theory that Mel Gibson's anti-semitic father also agrees with, as well as many other anti-american & anti-semitic political leaders and conspiracy theorists: that the US government used computer-guided planes to strike the towers and then send in black ops teams to bring down the buildings.

unfortunately, when a trans-continental jumbo jet slams into a skyscraper, and knocks off fireproofing from structural steel, which in turn exposes the steel to jet fuel that has ignited in confined spaces, there is only one way those buildings will go: straight down.

Since Rosie & the Clintons & the rest of the Liberal Democrat and Republican establishment think the truth should revolve around fixing their messed up lives, all of the world is made to suffer, and to be treated as their playtoy.

The Liberal Establishment's denials and promotion of conspiracy theories are another off-shoot of the 1960s Liberal Generation expecting others to fix their mistakes. Just like America has had to try and heal its damaged societal moral & diplomatic fabric after the 1960s Liberals gave the world the Vietnam defeat, and after the Liberal "free love" fiasco, and after Liberal pop-culture advocated the use of illegal drugs.

Now we have a country who will never be unified in the face of a determined enemy, and we hate the militray veterans who defend our liberties & freedoms.

"Free love" has turned out to be anything but free. We have paid a heavy price and present & future generations will be the ones who suffer the most because of promiscuity & Liberal sexual immorality, which has created new and more powerful STDs, and increased divorce, abortion, and death rates.

And new and more powerful illegal drugs are being created/used all the time, making America's and the Western worlds' youth the laughing stock of the world.

If there is any consiracy it is that the Liberal media conglomerates have put in place a media black out on the horrible failure of their Liberal dogmas and spin these failures as the faults of Conservative morality and diplomacy.

Unfortunately, America never had these failures until Liberals took over the education, policital, and even religious heirarchies in this great country.

Since the Liberals have controlled practically every facet of American life for the last 40 yrs, we have became a diseased and psychotic country not even sure of what the truth is, even when it slams us in the face.

The fruits of this Liberal conspiracy are only one: chaos.

All great societies & cultures never failed from external enemies; they always failed from internal enemies, whose philosophies were founded on perverted and demented moral systems & pacifistic foreign policy theories.

Rant switch off.
cheers.


Posted by: Bruce at April 16, 2007 02:15 PM

POWER TO THE PEOPLE BABY!

Posted by: Bruce at April 20, 2007 05:05 PM

..AND THE GOLDEN EVIDENCE I... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

..AND THE GOLDEN EVIDENCE IS POSTED AGAIN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MORONIC LIBERAL HACK, JUMBO JIMBO.

THIS EVIDENCE IS TAKEN FROM THE WSJ'S RECENT ARTICLE FROM JAN 2007, WHICH SUPERCEDES THE EARLIER 2005 MISTAKES MADE BY THE DEPT. OF JUSTICE AND WSJ:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009591

Philip Zelikow and Daniel Marcus, respectively the executive director and general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, told Mr. Davis's investigators that they were never told Mr. Berger had access to original classified documents for which no copies existed.

AND SINCE THEY WERE STOLEN THEY STILL CANNOT BE COPIED.

HOW DO WE KNOW? BECAUSE SINCE THOSE ORIGINAL CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY DOCUMENTS WERE STOLEN & DESTROYED BY SANDY BERGER, ON ORDERS OF C____ON, THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES CAN NEVER RECORD THEM FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO READ.

GOTCHA SPORT!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

What a moronic liberal hack, MISERABLE ol Jimbo is/was!

This is getting pretty funn... (Below threshold)
jim:

This is getting pretty funny.

OK, Bruce, I'll deal with this 'new editorial' of yours, once again, for I think the 4th time now. wonder

your old data is superceded by mine. Your link is two years old, and mine is from 2007. YOUR SUPPOSED "PROOF" IS A 2 YR OLD WSJ EDITIORAL. MINE IS IN THE LATEST WSJ 2007 EDITORIAL ON THE SUBJECT WITH QUOTES FROM ALL THE MAJOR PLAYERS AND ALL THE LATEST FACTS.

And I've asked you repeatedly to point out one few fact in your 'new' editorial, that disproves any of the facts in mine.

And you haven't shown a single one.

But you sure can cut and paste your own already-disproven rants, I'll give you that.

Prove me wrong, and point out, once again - One, that's 1 single 'new fact' in the editorial that you've posted, that disproves any fact I've stated.

That shouldn't be too hard, right? After all, God is on your side, and I'm a liberal, which means i bathe in baby's blood for breakfast.

Now let's deal with another issue you're still having problems with.

I SAID A REAGANITE CONSERVATIVE IS MY DEFINITION OF A TRUE CONSERVATIVE.

Uh-huh. And, for I think the 3rd time now - what does that mean, in terms of ideas and policies? Which was my question. Because I have no idea what conservative means to you, and especially Reaganite conservate.

Do you understand? I'm asking you what conservative means IN TERMS of POLICIES AND IDEAS.

For example, does Reaganite conservative mean 'small government' to you? Or does it mean 'strong Federal government'? Because Reagan said he was for small government, but actually increased government size.

For another example, does Reaganite conservative mean 'fiscally responsible'? Because Reagan tripled the national debt.

Does 'Reaganite conservative' mean you like to secretly sell weapons systems to our sworn enemy Iran? Does that mean you like to negotiate with terrorists? Does that mean you like jelly beans? See, I need more information.

And

...and I still see you have no rebuttal to the injustice that everyone in the Libby trial was allowed to have mistakes in their testimony and yet Libby, who did not lie, nor out a CIA agent, had to got to jail.

Uh, right. You're absolutely right. I have no rebuttal except the rebuttal I've given you the 4th time now:

Trial by jury of peers with the best legal counsel money can buy, and Libby lost.

That means he's guilty.

If he wins back the case on appeal, then he's innocent.

In other words, my rebuttal is reality.

Now, you can refuse to accept my rebuttal, like you can choose to refuse to accept reality.

It doesn't change reality, though. It just changes your relationship to reality.

Really think about it. Really. Isn't this ridiculous?

Bruce, just for the hell of... (Below threshold)
jim:

Bruce, just for the hell of it, I thought I might post something that's equally out of touch with reality. Just to see if you might get it or not.

See, Sandy Berger was actually working for GEORGE BUSH.

Bush is actually a cybord alien vampire cross-dressing feminist from Hell. And worse, it's not even a Christian Hell, it's a Muslim one.

HOW DO WE KNOW? BECAUSE SINCE THOSE ORIGINAL CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY DOCUMENTS WERE STOLEN & DESTROYED BY SANDY BERGER, ON ORDERS OF B____SH, THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES CAN NEVER RECORD THEM FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO READ.

And now the original classified national security documents, which COULD HAVE included pictures of George Bush having a lingerie party with Dick Cheney, Bruce Willis and Charo, are gone forever even though no one knows they were missing!

In similar news, I totally have information that Dick Cheney killed my puppy. Unfortunately Sandy Berger took that too.

Sandy Berger definitely did this, because some people speculate that he could have.

Here's some more of the imp... (Below threshold)
jim:

Here's some more of the important secret documents that Berger definitely destroyed even though he didn't destroy anything and nothing is actually missing.

I'm posting them here because I'm a liberal, therefore I want to violate national security at least once before I help Barbara Streisand outlaw all your guns, so the UN can invade us and force your sons to marry each other at gunpoint.

"Washington couldn't tell a lie, Nixon couldn't tell the truth, and Reagan couldn't tell the difference."
- mort sahl


"I believe that Ronald Reagan can make this country what it once was -- an Arctic region covered with ice."
- Steve Martin

Oh, and here's a quote that explains it all. This must be the core of the Reaganit Conservatism you profess to love and follow.

"Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Reagan

OK, you know what? That las... (Below threshold)
jim:

OK, you know what? That last post of mine was confrontational. I apologize for the tone of that. It's beneath me.

It's just so ridiculous, Bruce. Honestly, I don't know why I'm still typing.

fine Jimbo. here we go ANSW... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

fine Jimbo. here we go ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION AGAIN.

your old data is superceded by mine. Your link is two years old, and mine is from 2007. YOUR SUPPOSED "PROOF" IS A 2 YR OLD WSJ EDITIORAL. MINE IS IN THE LATEST WSJ 2007 EDITORIAL ON THE SUBJECT WITH QUOTES FROM ALL THE MAJOR PLAYERS AND ALL THE LATEST FACTS.

ALSO YOUR REAL LAME IN STILL ASKING WHAT DO I MEAN BY "CONSERVATIVE." YOU MUST BE THE DUMBEST LIBERAL HACK I HAVE EVER CALLED OUT ON THE CARPET. THE DUMBEST. I SAID A REAGANITE CONSERVATIVE IS MY DEFINITION OF A TRUE CONSERVATIVE. HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU NEED TO SEE THAT ANSWER??? ITS PRETTY SAD HOW YOU IGNORE MY ANSWER, WHICH IS ALSO SHOWN BELOW FROM MY LAST POST.

ALSO SINCE YOU DIDNT STILL ANSWER MY QUESTIONS WITH ANY FACTS YOU GET THE ENTIRE MARTINI THROWN IN YOUR FAT FACE AGAIN.

cheers moron.

Jim, your emails are the biggest insults I have ever experienced. complete political party trash. Jimbo, even you said "what I meant was," so you know that you have not been very clear. dude, you dont even know what your saying anymore.

I have already answered you mulitple times. You insult me by continuing to lie that you have not seen my answers. You are simply too stupid and too much of a Liberal Democrat hack to have a response to them.

It doesnt matter if they were originals or copies, they were Classified National Security Documents from the National Archives, that were stolen and destroyed and therefor prevented from being seen by the 9/11 Commission.

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

JIMBO, YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF THAT THE 9/11 COMMISION SAW WHAT BERGER STOLE & DESTROYED. BERGER PREVENTED THAT FROM HAPPENING. UNFORTUNATELY YOUR WSJ ARTICLE IS TWO YEARS OLD, AND THE WSJ 2007 ARTICLE AND 9/11 COMMISSION DISAGREE WITH THEIR EARLIER OPINIONS. THEY NOW BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009591

While a polygraph is not admissible in court, it is a valuable tool investigators can use to lead them to other evidence. Andrew Napolitano, a former judge who is a legal analyst for Fox News, notes: "If they ask him, did you take document X, Y, Z, and he says no, and the polygraph shows that he's lying, that will send them on a hunt for document X, Y, Z." In addition, Mr. Berger would have to take the test under oath and thus could be prosecuted for perjury if he lied, even though his document-theft case is closed.

Philip Zelikow and Daniel Marcus, respectively the executive director and general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, told Mr. Davis's investigators that they were never told Mr. Berger had access to original classified documents for which no copies existed. Had he known, Mr. Zelikow says, he would had "grave concern."

As it was, the 9/11 Commission was not informed of any investigation of Mr. Berger's alleged tampering with documents until only two days before his testimony, and then in only the most vague terms. Not only were the 9/11 Commission not told that Mr. Berger had access to original documents; they were affirmatively led to believe that the commission got all the documents that Mr. Berger took. Both Mr. Zelikow and Mr. Marcus understood Justice to mean that there was no way Mr. Berger had taken any other documents. An investigator for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee bluntly told Fox News last week: "The Justice Department lied to the 9/11 Commission about Sandy Berger. That is a fact."

sorry charlie your wrong. the Justice Dept lied to the 9/11 Commision and the 9/11 Commission and the WSJ have admitted that Dept of Justice, has in fact, lied to everyone.

So Jimbo, what you have just proven is that Liberal Democrats such as yourself, believe Berger did not commit a crime and therefor did not need to admit to stealing anything, AND since nothing was stolen, Berger shouldnt have paid his fine.

GOT IT JIMBO! PERFECTLY CLEAR. ITS OPEN SEASON FOR BEING A TRAITOR AND FOR BEING A CARD CARRYING DEMOCRAT PARTY MEMBER.

thanks Jim for clarifying how ridiculous and treasonous the Liberal Democrat Party truly is.

cheers chump.

wink wink heh heh

PS oh Jimbo, I will wave my question about the colleges because you are too much of a Liberal coward to ever admit THERE ARE NO CONSERVATIVE COLLEGE ADMISTRATIONS IN THE USA.

"duh Bruce, will you please tell me what kind of conservative you mean?" "duh Jimbo, a Reaganite type conservative, duh what dont you understand?" duhhhh duhhhh

...and I still see you have no rebuttal to the injustice that everyone in the Libby trial was allowed to have mistakes in their testimony and yet Libby, who did not lie, nor out a CIA agent, had to got to jail.

I knew if I dug deep enough, that there is always one moronic Liberal on every list who thinks nobody sees the farce their trying to pull, and Jimbo is it. Jimbo the Liberal soldier falling on his sword and then flying into the sunset. farewell sweet prince...I could play you for ever pal.

You dont have the answers because all your peddling are lies and hate and treason. plain & simple.

Posted by Bruce at April 20, 2007 12:47 AM

Posted by: Bruce at April 20, 2007 02:53 PM

Posted by: Bruce at April 20, 2007 07:57 PM

And lest we forget what ... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

And lest we forget what set off LIBERAL DEM PARTY HACK, JIM, here is the original rant that he couldnt stand.

What is so ironic is that he felt that it wasnt true and thought he could convince the world otherwise. The sad state of the mind of the Liberal Party Hack is he is an elitist who thinks that he and the Liberal Democrat Party are above the law, not to mention, good old common sense. SADLY FOR THE LIBERAL PARTY HACK, HE, & THEY, ARE NOT. and it goes like this:

Rant switch on:

As much as I think Bush has squandered the trust given to him by Republican and Democrat Conservatives, I still think Clinton and the liberals are to blame for all of this terrorist mess.

My conservative conspiracy theory stems from the fact that the Clinton Democrat-held White House most likely used the delays caused by Gore's "2000-post-election-result-denial-syndrome" to destroy as much evidence as possible at the White House. Then, when Bush's administration transitioned into power in the last days/minutes before the 2001 inauguration, months after the time that a new president should have transitioned (which is immediately after the 2000 election). Lets face it, everytime the Florida election results were recounted, Bush got more votes...and even less time to have an effective transition.

So it begs the question, what was the Clinton Liberal Democrat White House hiding that they destroyed the ability to use every computer in the White House, when they let Bush's folks in? why give Bush's administration so little time for an effective transition?

It seems the one thing Clinton and his Liberal mafia forgot was the National Security documents. They seemed to forget the documents that showed the Clintons knew alot more about the 9/11 plans than originally denied, and/or how they bungled important opportunities to kill/kidnap Bin Laden or other of his AlQaeda players.

Its quite incredible that Bush's Justice Dept let Clinton's hack, Sandy Berger, commit an act of treason by stealing & destroying National Security documents from the National Archives.

If there ever was a reason to fire Gonzalez, and fault Bush's presidency, it is for dropping the ball on sending Berger to prison for his heinous crime of stealing from the Nat'l Archives, as well as for not telling the American public what was stolen from Nat'l Archives.

As far as Rosie the bigot is concerned, I luv how Rosie agrees with a conspiracy theory that Mel Gibson's anti-semitic father also agrees with, as well as many other anti-american & anti-semitic political leaders and conspiracy theorists: that the US government used computer-guided planes to strike the towers and then send in black ops teams to bring down the buildings.

unfortunately, when a trans-continental jumbo jet slams into a skyscraper, and knocks off fireproofing from structural steel, which in turn exposes the steel to jet fuel that has ignited in confined spaces, there is only one way those buildings will go: straight down.

Since Rosie & the Clintons & the rest of the Liberal Democrat and Republican establishment think the truth should revolve around fixing their messed up lives, all of the world is made to suffer, and to be treated as their playtoy.

The Liberal Establishment's denials and promotion of conspiracy theories are another off-shoot of the 1960s Liberal Generation expecting others to fix their mistakes. Just like America has had to try and heal its damaged societal moral & diplomatic fabric after the 1960s Liberals gave the world the Vietnam defeat, and after the Liberal "free love" fiasco, and after Liberal pop-culture advocated the use of illegal drugs.

Now we have a country who will never be unified in the face of a determined enemy, and we hate the militray veterans who defend our liberties & freedoms.

"Free love" has turned out to be anything but free. We have paid a heavy price and present & future generations will be the ones who suffer the most because of promiscuity & Liberal sexual immorality, which has created new and more powerful STDs, and increased divorce, abortion, and death rates.

And new and more powerful illegal drugs are being created/used all the time, making America's and the Western worlds' youth the laughing stock of the world.

If there is any consiracy it is that the Liberal media conglomerates have put in place a media black out on the horrible failure of their Liberal dogmas and spin these failures as the faults of Conservative morality and diplomacy.

Unfortunately, America never had these failures until Liberals took over the education, policital, and even religious heirarchies in this great country.

Since the Liberals have controlled practically every facet of American life for the last 40 yrs, we have became a diseased and psychotic country not even sure of what the truth is, even when it slams us in the face.

The fruits of this Liberal conspiracy are only one: chaos.

All great societies & cultures never failed from external enemies; they always failed from internal enemies, whose philosophies were founded on perverted and demented moral systems & pacifistic foreign policy theories.

Rant switch off.
cheers.

Posted by: Bruce at April 16, 2007 02:15 PM

POWER TO THE PEOPLE BABY!

..AND THE GOLDEN EVIDENCE I... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

..AND THE GOLDEN EVIDENCE IS POSTED AGAIN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MORONIC LIBERAL HACK, JUMBO JIMBO.

THIS EVIDENCE IS TAKEN FROM THE WSJ'S RECENT ARTICLE FROM JAN 2007, WHICH SUPERCEDES THE EARLIER 2005 MISTAKES MADE BY THE DEPT. OF JUSTICE AND WSJ:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009591

Philip Zelikow and Daniel Marcus, respectively the executive director and general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, told Mr. Davis's investigators that they were never told Mr. Berger had access to original classified documents for which no copies existed.

AND SINCE THEY WERE STOLEN THEY STILL CANNOT BE COPIED.

HOW DO WE KNOW? BECAUSE SINCE THOSE ORIGINAL CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY DOCUMENTS WERE STOLEN & DESTROYED BY SANDY BERGER, ON ORDERS OF C____ON, THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES CAN NEVER RECORD THEM FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO READ.

GOTCHA SPORT!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

What a moronic liberal hack, MISERABLE ol Jimbo is/was!

wink wink heh heh

OKay, cool. Maybe you'll ge... (Below threshold)
jim:

OKay, cool. Maybe you'll get it this time.

The fact that your article is more recent, is meaningless, because not one fact in your article contradicts any facts in mine.

Do you understand that? Yes or no?

Speculation is not facts.

Do you understand that? Yes or no?

Is there something that's unclear about that?

See here's speculation:... (Below threshold)
jim:

See here's speculation:

"Sandy Berger COULD HAVE destroyed original documents."

Here's facts:

- No one saw Sandy Berger destroy original documents

- No one knows of any documents that are missing

- No one has heard Sandy Berger, Clinton, or anyone else talking about how they should destroy original documents

As far as the 9/11 Commission knows, they have seen all pertinent documents. No point in your article disputes this.

See the important difference?

What do you think the point is that I'm making?

Bruce, please cut and paste... (Below threshold)
jim:

Bruce, please cut and paste your already-disproven postings again, and then end with something childish.

fine Jimbo. here we go ANSW... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

fine Jimbo. here we go ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION AGAIN.

your old data is superceded by mine. Your link is two years old, and mine is from 2007. YOUR SUPPOSED "PROOF" IS A 2 YR OLD WSJ EDITIORAL. MINE IS IN THE LATEST WSJ 2007 EDITORIAL ON THE SUBJECT WITH QUOTES FROM ALL THE MAJOR PLAYERS AND ALL THE LATEST FACTS.

ALSO YOUR REAL LAME IN STILL ASKING WHAT DO I MEAN BY "CONSERVATIVE." YOU MUST BE THE DUMBEST LIBERAL HACK I HAVE EVER CALLED OUT ON THE CARPET. THE DUMBEST. I SAID A REAGANITE CONSERVATIVE IS MY DEFINITION OF A TRUE CONSERVATIVE. HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU NEED TO SEE THAT ANSWER??? ITS PRETTY SAD HOW YOU IGNORE MY ANSWER, WHICH IS ALSO SHOWN BELOW FROM MY LAST POST.

ALSO SINCE YOU DIDNT STILL ANSWER MY QUESTIONS WITH ANY FACTS YOU GET THE ENTIRE MARTINI THROWN IN YOUR FAT FACE AGAIN.

cheers moron.

Jim, your emails are the biggest insults I have ever experienced. complete political party trash. Jimbo, even you said "what I meant was," so you know that you have not been very clear. dude, you dont even know what your saying anymore.

I have already answered you mulitple times. You insult me by continuing to lie that you have not seen my answers. You are simply too stupid and too much of a Liberal Democrat hack to have a response to them.

It doesnt matter if they were originals or copies, they were Classified National Security Documents from the National Archives, that were stolen and destroyed and therefor prevented from being seen by the 9/11 Commission.

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

JIMBO, YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF THAT THE 9/11 COMMISION SAW WHAT BERGER STOLE & DESTROYED. BERGER PREVENTED THAT FROM HAPPENING. UNFORTUNATELY YOUR WSJ ARTICLE IS TWO YEARS OLD, AND THE WSJ 2007 ARTICLE AND 9/11 COMMISSION DISAGREE WITH THEIR EARLIER OPINIONS. THEY NOW BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009591

While a polygraph is not admissible in court, it is a valuable tool investigators can use to lead them to other evidence. Andrew Napolitano, a former judge who is a legal analyst for Fox News, notes: "If they ask him, did you take document X, Y, Z, and he says no, and the polygraph shows that he's lying, that will send them on a hunt for document X, Y, Z." In addition, Mr. Berger would have to take the test under oath and thus could be prosecuted for perjury if he lied, even though his document-theft case is closed.

Philip Zelikow and Daniel Marcus, respectively the executive director and general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, told Mr. Davis's investigators that they were never told Mr. Berger had access to original classified documents for which no copies existed. Had he known, Mr. Zelikow says, he would had "grave concern."

As it was, the 9/11 Commission was not informed of any investigation of Mr. Berger's alleged tampering with documents until only two days before his testimony, and then in only the most vague terms. Not only were the 9/11 Commission not told that Mr. Berger had access to original documents; they were affirmatively led to believe that the commission got all the documents that Mr. Berger took. Both Mr. Zelikow and Mr. Marcus understood Justice to mean that there was no way Mr. Berger had taken any other documents. An investigator for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee bluntly told Fox News last week: "The Justice Department lied to the 9/11 Commission about Sandy Berger. That is a fact."

sorry charlie your wrong. the Justice Dept lied to the 9/11 Commision and the 9/11 Commission and the WSJ have admitted that Dept of Justice, has in fact, lied to everyone.

So Jimbo, what you have just proven is that Liberal Democrats such as yourself, believe Berger did not commit a crime and therefor did not need to admit to stealing anything, AND since nothing was stolen, Berger shouldnt have paid his fine.

GOT IT JIMBO! PERFECTLY CLEAR. ITS OPEN SEASON FOR BEING A TRAITOR AND FOR BEING A CARD CARRYING DEMOCRAT PARTY MEMBER.

thanks Jim for clarifying how ridiculous and treasonous the Liberal Democrat Party truly is.

cheers chump.

wink wink heh heh

PS oh Jimbo, I will wave my question about the colleges because you are too much of a Liberal coward to ever admit THERE ARE NO CONSERVATIVE COLLEGE ADMISTRATIONS IN THE USA.

"duh Bruce, will you please tell me what kind of conservative you mean?" "duh Jimbo, a Reaganite type conservative, duh what dont you understand?" duhhhh duhhhh

...and I still see you have no rebuttal to the injustice that everyone in the Libby trial was allowed to have mistakes in their testimony and yet Libby, who did not lie, nor out a CIA agent, had to got to jail.

I knew if I dug deep enough, that there is always one moronic Liberal on every list who thinks nobody sees the farce their trying to pull, and Jimbo is it. Jimbo the Liberal soldier falling on his sword and then flying into the sunset. farewell sweet prince...I could play you for ever pal.

You dont have the answers because all your peddling are lies and hate and treason. plain & simple.

Posted by Bruce at April 20, 2007 12:47 AM

Posted by: Bruce at April 20, 2007 02:53 PM

Posted by: Bruce at April 20, 2007 07:57 PM

Posted by: Bruce at April 21, 2007 03:14 PM

And lest we forget what ... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

And lest we forget what set off LIBERAL DEM PARTY HACK, JIM, here is the original rant that he couldnt stand.

What is so ironic is that he felt that it wasnt true and thought he could convince the world otherwise. The sad state of the mind of the Liberal Party Hack is he is an elitist who thinks that he and the Liberal Democrat Party are above the law, not to mention, good old common sense. SADLY FOR THE LIBERAL PARTY HACK, HE, & THEY, ARE NOT. and it goes like this:

Rant switch on:

As much as I think Bush has squandered the trust given to him by Republican and Democrat Conservatives, I still think Clinton and the liberals are to blame for all of this terrorist mess.

My conservative conspiracy theory stems from the fact that the Clinton Democrat-held White House most likely used the delays caused by Gore's "2000-post-election-result-denial-syndrome" to destroy as much evidence as possible at the White House. Then, when Bush's administration transitioned into power in the last days/minutes before the 2001 inauguration, months after the time that a new president should have transitioned (which is immediately after the 2000 election). Lets face it, everytime the Florida election results were recounted, Bush got more votes...and even less time to have an effective transition.

So it begs the question, what was the Clinton Liberal Democrat White House hiding that they destroyed the ability to use every computer in the White House, when they let Bush's folks in? why give Bush's administration so little time for an effective transition?

It seems the one thing Clinton and his Liberal mafia forgot was the National Security documents. They seemed to forget the documents that showed the Clintons knew alot more about the 9/11 plans than originally denied, and/or how they bungled important opportunities to kill/kidnap Bin Laden or other of his AlQaeda players.

Its quite incredible that Bush's Justice Dept let Clinton's hack, Sandy Berger, commit an act of treason by stealing & destroying National Security documents from the National Archives.

If there ever was a reason to fire Gonzalez, and fault Bush's presidency, it is for dropping the ball on sending Berger to prison for his heinous crime of stealing from the Nat'l Archives, as well as for not telling the American public what was stolen from Nat'l Archives.

As far as Rosie the bigot is concerned, I luv how Rosie agrees with a conspiracy theory that Mel Gibson's anti-semitic father also agrees with, as well as many other anti-american & anti-semitic political leaders and conspiracy theorists: that the US government used computer-guided planes to strike the towers and then send in black ops teams to bring down the buildings.

unfortunately, when a trans-continental jumbo jet slams into a skyscraper, and knocks off fireproofing from structural steel, which in turn exposes the steel to jet fuel that has ignited in confined spaces, there is only one way those buildings will go: straight down.

Since Rosie & the Clintons & the rest of the Liberal Democrat and Republican establishment think the truth should revolve around fixing their messed up lives, all of the world is made to suffer, and to be treated as their playtoy.

The Liberal Establishment's denials and promotion of conspiracy theories are another off-shoot of the 1960s Liberal Generation expecting others to fix their mistakes. Just like America has had to try and heal its damaged societal moral & diplomatic fabric after the 1960s Liberals gave the world the Vietnam defeat, and after the Liberal "free love" fiasco, and after Liberal pop-culture advocated the use of illegal drugs.

Now we have a country who will never be unified in the face of a determined enemy, and we hate the militray veterans who defend our liberties & freedoms.

"Free love" has turned out to be anything but free. We have paid a heavy price and present & future generations will be the ones who suffer the most because of promiscuity & Liberal sexual immorality, which has created new and more powerful STDs, and increased divorce, abortion, and death rates.

And new and more powerful illegal drugs are being created/used all the time, making America's and the Western worlds' youth the laughing stock of the world.

If there is any consiracy it is that the Liberal media conglomerates have put in place a media black out on the horrible failure of their Liberal dogmas and spin these failures as the faults of Conservative morality and diplomacy.

Unfortunately, America never had these failures until Liberals took over the education, policital, and even religious heirarchies in this great country.

Since the Liberals have controlled practically every facet of American life for the last 40 yrs, we have became a diseased and psychotic country not even sure of what the truth is, even when it slams us in the face.

The fruits of this Liberal conspiracy are only one: chaos.

All great societies & cultures never failed from external enemies; they always failed from internal enemies, whose philosophies were founded on perverted and demented moral systems & pacifistic foreign policy theories.

Rant switch off.
cheers.

Posted by: Bruce at April 16, 2007 02:15 PM

POWER TO THE PEOPLE BABY!

..AND THE GOLDEN EVIDENCE I... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

..AND THE GOLDEN EVIDENCE IS POSTED AGAIN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MORONIC LIBERAL HACK, JUMBO JIMBO.

THIS EVIDENCE IS TAKEN FROM THE WSJ'S RECENT ARTICLE FROM JAN 2007, WHICH SUPERCEDES THE EARLIER 2005 MISTAKES MADE BY THE DEPT. OF JUSTICE AND WSJ:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009591

Philip Zelikow and Daniel Marcus, respectively the executive director and general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, told Mr. Davis's investigators that they were never told Mr. Berger had access to original classified documents for which no copies existed.

AND SINCE THEY WERE STOLEN THEY STILL CANNOT BE COPIED.

HOW DO WE KNOW? BECAUSE SINCE THOSE ORIGINAL CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY DOCUMENTS WERE STOLEN & DESTROYED BY SANDY BERGER, ON ORDERS OF C____ON, THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES CAN NEVER RECORD THEM FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO READ.

GOTCHA SPORT!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

What a moronic liberal hack, MISERABLE ol Jimbo is/was!

wink wink heh heh

Excellent Bruce. Thanks. Th... (Below threshold)
jim:

Excellent Bruce. Thanks. That was perfect.

Now let me point out that this quote of yours:

Philip Zelikow and Daniel Marcus, respectively the executive director and general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, told Mr. Davis's investigators that they were never told Mr. Berger had access to original classified documents for which no copies existed.

- only means that destroying of originals COULD HAVE happened.

See, not all things that COULD happen actually DO HAPPEN.

So, you're accusing Sandy Berger of something that COULD HAVE happened, when there's no evidence that it actually DID happen.

Do you understand the difference between things that COULD happen, and things that DO happen?

Now, please refuse to acknowledge this basic fact of reality, and cut and paste your already-disproven postings again. And then end again with something childish.

Thanks,
~j : )

fine Jimbo. here we go ANSW... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

fine Jimbo. here we go ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION AGAIN.

your old data is superceded by mine. Your link is two years old, and mine is from 2007. YOUR SUPPOSED "PROOF" IS A 2 YR OLD WSJ EDITIORAL. MINE IS IN THE LATEST WSJ 2007 EDITORIAL ON THE SUBJECT WITH QUOTES FROM ALL THE MAJOR PLAYERS AND ALL THE LATEST FACTS.

ALSO YOUR REAL LAME IN STILL ASKING WHAT DO I MEAN BY "CONSERVATIVE." YOU MUST BE THE DUMBEST LIBERAL HACK I HAVE EVER CALLED OUT ON THE CARPET. THE DUMBEST. I SAID A REAGANITE CONSERVATIVE IS MY DEFINITION OF A TRUE CONSERVATIVE. HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU NEED TO SEE THAT ANSWER??? ITS PRETTY SAD HOW YOU IGNORE MY ANSWER, WHICH IS ALSO SHOWN BELOW FROM MY LAST POST.

ALSO SINCE YOU DIDNT STILL ANSWER MY QUESTIONS WITH ANY FACTS YOU GET THE ENTIRE MARTINI THROWN IN YOUR FAT FACE AGAIN.

cheers moron.

Jim, your emails are the biggest insults I have ever experienced. complete political party trash. Jimbo, even you said "what I meant was," so you know that you have not been very clear. dude, you dont even know what your saying anymore.

I have already answered you mulitple times. You insult me by continuing to lie that you have not seen my answers. You are simply too stupid and too much of a Liberal Democrat hack to have a response to them.

It doesnt matter if they were originals or copies, they were Classified National Security Documents from the National Archives, that were stolen and destroyed and therefor prevented from being seen by the 9/11 Commission.

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

JIMBO, YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF THAT THE 9/11 COMMISION SAW WHAT BERGER STOLE & DESTROYED. BERGER PREVENTED THAT FROM HAPPENING. UNFORTUNATELY YOUR WSJ ARTICLE IS TWO YEARS OLD, AND THE WSJ 2007 ARTICLE AND 9/11 COMMISSION DISAGREE WITH THEIR EARLIER OPINIONS. THEY NOW BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009591

While a polygraph is not admissible in court, it is a valuable tool investigators can use to lead them to other evidence. Andrew Napolitano, a former judge who is a legal analyst for Fox News, notes: "If they ask him, did you take document X, Y, Z, and he says no, and the polygraph shows that he's lying, that will send them on a hunt for document X, Y, Z." In addition, Mr. Berger would have to take the test under oath and thus could be prosecuted for perjury if he lied, even though his document-theft case is closed.

Philip Zelikow and Daniel Marcus, respectively the executive director and general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, told Mr. Davis's investigators that they were never told Mr. Berger had access to original classified documents for which no copies existed. Had he known, Mr. Zelikow says, he would had "grave concern."

As it was, the 9/11 Commission was not informed of any investigation of Mr. Berger's alleged tampering with documents until only two days before his testimony, and then in only the most vague terms. Not only were the 9/11 Commission not told that Mr. Berger had access to original documents; they were affirmatively led to believe that the commission got all the documents that Mr. Berger took. Both Mr. Zelikow and Mr. Marcus understood Justice to mean that there was no way Mr. Berger had taken any other documents. An investigator for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee bluntly told Fox News last week: "The Justice Department lied to the 9/11 Commission about Sandy Berger. That is a fact."

sorry charlie your wrong. the Justice Dept lied to the 9/11 Commision and the 9/11 Commission and the WSJ have admitted that Dept of Justice, has in fact, lied to everyone.

So Jimbo, what you have just proven is that Liberal Democrats such as yourself, believe Berger did not commit a crime and therefor did not need to admit to stealing anything, AND since nothing was stolen, Berger shouldnt have paid his fine.

GOT IT JIMBO! PERFECTLY CLEAR. ITS OPEN SEASON FOR BEING A TRAITOR AND FOR BEING A CARD CARRYING DEMOCRAT PARTY MEMBER.

thanks Jim for clarifying how ridiculous and treasonous the Liberal Democrat Party truly is.

cheers chump.

wink wink heh heh

PS oh Jimbo, I will wave my question about the colleges because you are too much of a Liberal coward to ever admit THERE ARE NO CONSERVATIVE COLLEGE ADMISTRATIONS IN THE USA.

"duh Bruce, will you please tell me what kind of conservative you mean?" "duh Jimbo, a Reaganite type conservative, duh what dont you understand?" duhhhh duhhhh

...and I still see you have no rebuttal to the injustice that everyone in the Libby trial was allowed to have mistakes in their testimony and yet Libby, who did not lie, nor out a CIA agent, had to got to jail.

I knew if I dug deep enough, that there is always one moronic Liberal on every list who thinks nobody sees the farce their trying to pull, and Jimbo is it. Jimbo the Liberal soldier falling on his sword and then flying into the sunset. farewell sweet prince...I could play you for ever pal.

You dont have the answers because all your peddling are lies and hate and treason. plain & simple.

Posted by Bruce at April 20, 2007 12:47 AM

Posted by: Bruce at April 20, 2007 02:53 PM

Posted by: Bruce at April 20, 2007 07:57 PM

Posted by: Bruce at April 21, 2007 03:14 PM

Posted by: Bruce at April 21, 2007 05:58 PM

And lest we forget what ... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

And lest we forget what set off LIBERAL DEM PARTY HACK, JIM, here is the original rant that he couldnt stand.

What is so ironic is that he felt that it wasnt true and thought he could convince the world otherwise. The sad state of the mind of the Liberal Party Hack is he is an elitist who thinks that he and the Liberal Democrat Party are above the law, not to mention, good old common sense. SADLY FOR THE LIBERAL PARTY HACK, HE, & THEY, ARE NOT. and it goes like this:

Rant switch on:

As much as I think Bush has squandered the trust given to him by Republican and Democrat Conservatives, I still think Clinton and the liberals are to blame for all of this terrorist mess.

My conservative conspiracy theory stems from the fact that the Clinton Democrat-held White House most likely used the delays caused by Gore's "2000-post-election-result-denial-syndrome" to destroy as much evidence as possible at the White House. Then, when Bush's administration transitioned into power in the last days/minutes before the 2001 inauguration, months after the time that a new president should have transitioned (which is immediately after the 2000 election). Lets face it, everytime the Florida election results were recounted, Bush got more votes...and even less time to have an effective transition.

So it begs the question, what was the Clinton Liberal Democrat White House hiding that they destroyed the ability to use every computer in the White House, when they let Bush's folks in? why give Bush's administration so little time for an effective transition?

It seems the one thing Clinton and his Liberal mafia forgot was the National Security documents. They seemed to forget the documents that showed the Clintons knew alot more about the 9/11 plans than originally denied, and/or how they bungled important opportunities to kill/kidnap Bin Laden or other of his AlQaeda players.

Its quite incredible that Bush's Justice Dept let Clinton's hack, Sandy Berger, commit an act of treason by stealing & destroying National Security documents from the National Archives.

If there ever was a reason to fire Gonzalez, and fault Bush's presidency, it is for dropping the ball on sending Berger to prison for his heinous crime of stealing from the Nat'l Archives, as well as for not telling the American public what was stolen from Nat'l Archives.

As far as Rosie the bigot is concerned, I luv how Rosie agrees with a conspiracy theory that Mel Gibson's anti-semitic father also agrees with, as well as many other anti-american & anti-semitic political leaders and conspiracy theorists: that the US government used computer-guided planes to strike the towers and then send in black ops teams to bring down the buildings.

unfortunately, when a trans-continental jumbo jet slams into a skyscraper, and knocks off fireproofing from structural steel, which in turn exposes the steel to jet fuel that has ignited in confined spaces, there is only one way those buildings will go: straight down.

Since Rosie & the Clintons & the rest of the Liberal Democrat and Republican establishment think the truth should revolve around fixing their messed up lives, all of the world is made to suffer, and to be treated as their playtoy.

The Liberal Establishment's denials and promotion of conspiracy theories are another off-shoot of the 1960s Liberal Generation expecting others to fix their mistakes. Just like America has had to try and heal its damaged societal moral & diplomatic fabric after the 1960s Liberals gave the world the Vietnam defeat, and after the Liberal "free love" fiasco, and after Liberal pop-culture advocated the use of illegal drugs.

Now we have a country who will never be unified in the face of a determined enemy, and we hate the militray veterans who defend our liberties & freedoms.

"Free love" has turned out to be anything but free. We have paid a heavy price and present & future generations will be the ones who suffer the most because of promiscuity & Liberal sexual immorality, which has created new and more powerful STDs, and increased divorce, abortion, and death rates.

And new and more powerful illegal drugs are being created/used all the time, making America's and the Western worlds' youth the laughing stock of the world.

If there is any consiracy it is that the Liberal media conglomerates have put in place a media black out on the horrible failure of their Liberal dogmas and spin these failures as the faults of Conservative morality and diplomacy.

Unfortunately, America never had these failures until Liberals took over the education, policital, and even religious heirarchies in this great country.

Since the Liberals have controlled practically every facet of American life for the last 40 yrs, we have became a diseased and psychotic country not even sure of what the truth is, even when it slams us in the face.

The fruits of this Liberal conspiracy are only one: chaos.

All great societies & cultures never failed from external enemies; they always failed from internal enemies, whose philosophies were founded on perverted and demented moral systems & pacifistic foreign policy theories.

Rant switch off.
cheers.

Posted by: Bruce at April 16, 2007 02:15 PM

POWER TO THE PEOPLE BABY!


..AND THE GOLDEN EVIDENC... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

..AND THE GOLDEN EVIDENCE IS POSTED AGAIN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MORONIC LIBERAL HACK, JUMBO JIMBO.

THIS EVIDENCE IS TAKEN FROM THE WSJ'S RECENT ARTICLE FROM JAN 2007, WHICH SUPERCEDES THE EARLIER 2005 MISTAKES MADE BY THE DEPT. OF JUSTICE AND WSJ:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009591

Philip Zelikow and Daniel Marcus, respectively the executive director and general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, told Mr. Davis's investigators that they were never told Mr. Berger had access to original classified documents for which no copies existed.

AND SINCE THEY WERE STOLEN THEY STILL CANNOT BE COPIED.

HOW DO WE KNOW? BECAUSE SINCE THOSE ORIGINAL CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY DOCUMENTS WERE STOLEN & DESTROYED BY SANDY BERGER, ON ORDERS OF C____ON, THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES CAN NEVER RECORD THEM FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO READ.

GOTCHA SPORT!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

What a moronic liberal hack, MISERABLE ol Jimbo is/was!

wink wink heh heh

Sweet!Now, Bruce, ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Sweet!

Now, Bruce, if you could copy-paste your post one more time, that would fully prove that you aren't listening to a word I say, that you really don't care about any difference between what 'could happen' and what 'did happen' as long as it means that Clinton/Liberals are guilty.

That will free me from posting any more postings to this long-dead article, that probably only you and I are the only ones still reading. And with this final comment, I can be free from this bondage.

Free me, Bruce, and copy-paste your postings once again. Oh, and end with something childish again, of course.

Thanks,
~j : )

fine Jimbo. here we go ANSW... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

fine Jimbo. here we go ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION AGAIN.

your old data is superceded by mine. Your link is two years old, and mine is from 2007. YOUR SUPPOSED "PROOF" IS A 2 YR OLD WSJ EDITIORAL. MINE IS IN THE LATEST WSJ 2007 EDITORIAL ON THE SUBJECT WITH QUOTES FROM ALL THE MAJOR PLAYERS AND ALL THE LATEST FACTS.

ALSO YOUR REAL LAME IN STILL ASKING WHAT DO I MEAN BY "CONSERVATIVE." YOU MUST BE THE DUMBEST LIBERAL HACK I HAVE EVER CALLED OUT ON THE CARPET. THE DUMBEST. I SAID A REAGANITE CONSERVATIVE IS MY DEFINITION OF A TRUE CONSERVATIVE. HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU NEED TO SEE THAT ANSWER??? ITS PRETTY SAD HOW YOU IGNORE MY ANSWER, WHICH IS ALSO SHOWN BELOW FROM MY LAST POST.

ALSO SINCE YOU DIDNT STILL ANSWER MY QUESTIONS WITH ANY FACTS YOU GET THE ENTIRE MARTINI THROWN IN YOUR FAT FACE AGAIN.

cheers moron.

Jim, your emails are the biggest insults I have ever experienced. complete political party trash. Jimbo, even you said "what I meant was," so you know that you have not been very clear. dude, you dont even know what your saying anymore.

I have already answered you mulitple times. You insult me by continuing to lie that you have not seen my answers. You are simply too stupid and too much of a Liberal Democrat hack to have a response to them.

It doesnt matter if they were originals or copies, they were Classified National Security Documents from the National Archives, that were stolen and destroyed and therefor prevented from being seen by the 9/11 Commission.

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

Jimbo, prove that the documents that Berger stole were seen by the 9/11 Commission?

JIMBO, YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF THAT THE 9/11 COMMISION SAW WHAT BERGER STOLE & DESTROYED. BERGER PREVENTED THAT FROM HAPPENING. UNFORTUNATELY YOUR WSJ ARTICLE IS TWO YEARS OLD, AND THE WSJ 2007 ARTICLE AND 9/11 COMMISSION DISAGREE WITH THEIR EARLIER OPINIONS. THEY NOW BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009591

While a polygraph is not admissible in court, it is a valuable tool investigators can use to lead them to other evidence. Andrew Napolitano, a former judge who is a legal analyst for Fox News, notes: "If they ask him, did you take document X, Y, Z, and he says no, and the polygraph shows that he's lying, that will send them on a hunt for document X, Y, Z." In addition, Mr. Berger would have to take the test under oath and thus could be prosecuted for perjury if he lied, even though his document-theft case is closed.

Philip Zelikow and Daniel Marcus, respectively the executive director and general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, told Mr. Davis's investigators that they were never told Mr. Berger had access to original classified documents for which no copies existed. Had he known, Mr. Zelikow says, he would had "grave concern."

As it was, the 9/11 Commission was not informed of any investigation of Mr. Berger's alleged tampering with documents until only two days before his testimony, and then in only the most vague terms. Not only were the 9/11 Commission not told that Mr. Berger had access to original documents; they were affirmatively led to believe that the commission got all the documents that Mr. Berger took. Both Mr. Zelikow and Mr. Marcus understood Justice to mean that there was no way Mr. Berger had taken any other documents. An investigator for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee bluntly told Fox News last week: "The Justice Department lied to the 9/11 Commission about Sandy Berger. That is a fact."

sorry charlie your wrong. the Justice Dept lied to the 9/11 Commision and the 9/11 Commission and the WSJ have admitted that Dept of Justice, has in fact, lied to everyone.

So Jimbo, what you have just proven is that Liberal Democrats such as yourself, believe Berger did not commit a crime and therefor did not need to admit to stealing anything, AND since nothing was stolen, Berger shouldnt have paid his fine.

GOT IT JIMBO! PERFECTLY CLEAR. ITS OPEN SEASON FOR BEING A TRAITOR AND FOR BEING A CARD CARRYING DEMOCRAT PARTY MEMBER.

thanks Jim for clarifying how ridiculous and treasonous the Liberal Democrat Party truly is.

cheers chump.

wink wink heh heh

PS oh Jimbo, I will wave my question about the colleges because you are too much of a Liberal coward to ever admit THERE ARE NO CONSERVATIVE COLLEGE ADMISTRATIONS IN THE USA.

"duh Bruce, will you please tell me what kind of conservative you mean?" "duh Jimbo, a Reaganite type conservative, duh what dont you understand?" duhhhh duhhhh

...and I still see you have no rebuttal to the injustice that everyone in the Libby trial was allowed to have mistakes in their testimony and yet Libby, who did not lie, nor out a CIA agent, had to got to jail.

I knew if I dug deep enough, that there is always one moronic Liberal on every list who thinks nobody sees the farce their trying to pull, and Jimbo is it. Jimbo the Liberal soldier falling on his sword and then flying into the sunset. farewell sweet prince...I could play you for ever pal.

You dont have the answers because all your peddling are lies and hate and treason. plain & simple.

Posted by Bruce at April 20, 2007 12:47 AM

Posted by: Bruce at April 20, 2007 02:53 PM

Posted by: Bruce at April 20, 2007 07:57 PM

Posted by: Bruce at April 21, 2007 03:14 PM

Posted by: Bruce at April 21, 2007 05:58 PM

Posted by: Bruce at April 21, 2007 11:44 PM

And lest we forget what ... (Below threshold)
Bruce:

And lest we forget what set off LIBERAL DEM PARTY HACK, JIM, here is the original rant that he couldnt stand.

What is so ironic is that he felt that it wasnt true and thought he could convince the world otherwise. The sad state of the mind of the Liberal Party Hack is he is an elitist who thinks that he and the Liberal Democrat Party are above the law, not to mention, good old common sense. SADLY FOR THE LIBERAL PARTY HACK, HE, & THEY, ARE NOT. and it goes like this:

Rant switch on:

As much as I think Bush has squandered the trust given to him by Republican and Democrat Conservatives, I still think Clinton and the liberals are to blame for all of this terrorist mess.

My conservative conspiracy theory stems from the fact that the Clinton Democrat-held White House most likely used the delays caused by Gore's "2000-post-election-result-denial-syndrome" to destroy as much evidence as possible at the White House. Then, when Bush's administration transitioned into power in the last days/minutes before the 2001 inauguration, months after the time that a new president should have transitioned (which is immediately after the 2000 election). Lets face it, everytime the Florida election results were recounted, Bush got more votes...and even less time to have an effective transition.

So it begs the question, what was the Clinton Liberal Democrat White House hiding that they destroyed the ability to use every computer in the White House, when they let Bush's folks in? why give Bush's administration so little time for an effective transition?

It seems the one thing Clinton and his Liberal mafia forgot was the National Security documents. They seemed to forget the documents that showed the Clintons knew alot more about the 9/11 plans than originally denied, and/or how they bungled important opportunities to kill/kidnap Bin Laden or other of his AlQaeda players.

Its quite incredible that Bush's Justice Dept let Clinton's hack, Sandy Berger, commit an act of treason by stealing & destroying National Security documents from the National Archives.

If there ever was a reason to fire Gonzalez, and fault Bush's presidency, it is for dropping the ball on sending Berger to prison for his heinous crime of stealing from the Nat'l Archives, as well as for not telling the American public what was stolen from Nat'l Archives.

As far as Rosie the bigot is concerned, I luv how Rosie agrees with a conspiracy theory that Mel Gibson's anti-semitic father also agrees with, as well as many other anti-american & anti-semitic political leaders and conspiracy theorists: that the US government used computer-guided planes to strike the towers and then send in black ops teams to bring down the buildings.

unfortunately, when a trans-continental jumbo jet slams into a skyscraper, and knocks off fireproofing from structural steel, which in turn exposes the steel to jet fuel that has ignited in confined spaces, there is only one way those buildings will go: straight down.

Since Rosie & the Clintons & the rest of the Liberal Democrat and Republican establishment think the truth should revolve around fixing their messed up lives, all of the world is made to suffer, and to be treated as their playtoy.

The Liberal Establishment's denials and promotion of conspiracy theories are another off-shoot of the 1960s Liberal Generation expecting others to fix their mistakes. Just like America has had to try and heal its damaged societal moral & diplomatic fabric after the 1960s Liberals gave the world the Vietnam defeat, and after the Liberal "free love" fiasco, and after Liberal pop-culture advocated the use of illegal drugs.

Now we have a country who will never be unified in the face of a determined enemy, and we hate the militray veterans who defend our liberties & freedoms.

"Free love" has turned out to be anything but free. We have paid a heavy price and present & future generations will be the ones who suffer the most because of promiscuity & Liberal sexual immorality, which has created new and more powerful STDs, and increased divorce, abortion, and death rates.

And new and more powerful illegal drugs are being created/used all the time, making America's and the Western worlds' youth the laughing stock of the world.

If there is any consiracy it is that the Liberal media conglomerates have put in place a media black out on the horrible failure of their Liberal dogmas and spin these failures as the faults of Conservative morality and diplomacy.

Unfortunately, America never had these failures until Liberals took over the education, policital, and even religious heirarchies in this great country.

Since the Liberals have controlled practically every facet of American life for the last 40 yrs, we have became a diseased and psychotic country not even sure of what the truth is, even when it slams us in the face.

The fruits of this Liberal conspiracy are only one: chaos.

All great societies & cultures never failed from external enemies; they always failed from internal enemies, whose philosophies were founded on perverted and demented moral systems & pacifistic foreign policy theories.

Rant switch off.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE BABY!

..AND THE GOLDEN EVIDENCE IS POSTED AGAIN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MORONIC LIBERAL HACK, JUMBO JIMBO.

THIS EVIDENCE IS TAKEN FROM THE WSJ'S RECENT ARTICLE FROM JAN 2007, WHICH SUPERCEDES THE EARLIER 2005 MISTAKES MADE BY THE DEPT. OF JUSTICE AND WSJ:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009591

Philip Zelikow and Daniel Marcus, respectively the executive director and general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, told Mr. Davis's investigators that they were never told Mr. Berger had access to original classified documents for which no copies existed.

AND SINCE THEY WERE STOLEN THEY STILL CANNOT BE COPIED.

HOW DO WE KNOW? BECAUSE SINCE THOSE ORIGINAL CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY DOCUMENTS WERE STOLEN & DESTROYED BY SANDY BERGER, ON ORDERS OF C____ON, THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES CAN NEVER RECORD THEM FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO READ.

GOTCHA SPORT!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

What a moronic liberal hack, MISERABLE ol Jimbo is/was!

wink wink heh heh




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