| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Brig. Adm. Jay Santos" |
| Date: |
10 Apr 2005 09:37:30 PM |
| Object: |
Sandy Berger Rolls Over for Bill and Hill |
Sandy Berger Rolls Over for Bill and Hill
By ***** Morris
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 8, 2005
Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger has now joined the
pantheon of those who, in the immortal words of Webb Hubbell, have
chosen to "roll over one more time" to protect Bill and Hillary Clinton.
This Hall of Ill-Fame includes Susan McDougal, Vince Foster, Monica
Lewinsky, Johnnie Chung, former Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, and old
Webb himself. What they each have in common is their silence and
willingness to take the fall to protect the Clintons.
Berger has admitted that he stuffed top-secret documents into his
pockets, shirt, and pants, and he sliced some up with scissors,
destroyed them and then lied about it. Until he gives a credible
explanation for this behavior, we are all entitled to make the logical
inference — that he was hiding something to protect himself and his old
bosses.
The documents were an "after-action review" by Richard Clarke, then the
National Security Council's terrorism expert, discussing and analyzing
our efforts to stop attacks during the Millennium celebrations. They
were so secret, the Washington Times reports, that anyone seeking to
remove the documents would have had to do so in a briefcase handcuffed
to his wrist. And, it seems, they were so critical of the former
administration that Berger felt he needed to steal them. But why did
Berger steal them?
The most obvious reason would be to stop the 9/11 Commission from
including embarrassing revelations in its report.
Yes, the documents Berger purloined were not the only copies, but it's
not clear that Berger knew that. Or there may have been handwritten
notes in the margins of the copies Berger destroyed — written by the
president, Berger, or others.
Berger's "explanation" stinks: He claims he was too tired to review the
documents in their secure venue, that eye fatigue moved him to stash
them in his pocket for later comparison in the leisure of his home and
office.
That's nonsense. After all, he went back a week later and helped himself
to more documents.
Berger would also have us believe he "inadvertently" cut up and
"inadvertently" destroyed the documents — that he had no intention of
concealing anything from the commission. And then, I suppose, he
inadvertently lied about what he'd done.
Come on. With a shabby explanation like that, Berger invites speculation
that he is covering for himself or for the Clintons.
Back in the '90s, I found Berger consistently unwilling to act
vigorously against terror-sponsoring nations. When Sen. Al D'Amato
proposed sanctions against Iran, Berger tried to get Clinton to veto the
bill; it was only after much public pressure that he signed it.
Berger was on a fast track to be the next Democratic Secretary of State.
He risked that in stealing those documents. Now he has destroyed his
future career by pleading to a criminal misdemeanor — admitting what he
did while still concealing why he did it.
The Clintons' reaction when Berger was caught? The former president's
comments sound just too scripted to believe: He laughed and said that it
was typical of Sandy to be disorganized and forget how he handled
documents. Quite a comment about the man he appointed to superintend the
nation's secrets.
Then Hillary announced, without being asked, that Sandy had just helped
brief her for a February speech at the annual Munich Conference on
Security Policy — sending the adviser a signal that he was still part of
the family, even though the grand jury was investigating him.
Picture the fevered atmosphere in the months after 9/11. Any indication
by the commission investigating the attack that the Clinton
administration hadn't taken terrorism seriously would badly damage the
former president's reputation and the former first lady's chances. Any
loyal adviser would have worked to mitigate the possible damage. The
measure of how serious the damage may have been is how far Berger risked
falling to prevent it — and how far he did fall rather than reveal why.
Eileen McGann co-authored this column.
***** Morris is a former adviser to President Clinton.
.
|
|
| User: "Greg Bernath" |
|
| Title: Re: Sandy Berger Rolls Over for Bill and Hill |
11 Apr 2005 08:20:37 PM |
|
|
"Brig. Adm. Jay Santos" <123@123.213> wrote:
Sandy Berger Rolls Over for Bill and Hill
By ***** Morris
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 8, 2005
Poor ***** Morris. No one gives him the time of day anymore, and he's
reduced to begging for scraps from conservatives. I mean, reduced to
publishing in Horowitz's white supremicist webzine? Sheesh.
Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger has now joined the
pantheon of those who, in the immortal words of Webb Hubbell, have
chosen to "roll over one more time" to protect Bill and Hillary Clinton.
It just infuriates wingnuts to see someone inspire that kind of
loyalty. Republicans can only achieve it through threats and fear, but
Clinton could do it through positive motivation.
Anyways, let's see what the prosecutors say about the case.
They say Berger was prepping for testimony with the 9/11 commission,
decided he was above working in a stuffy old office, and snuck the
notes home to work with them. Then he destroyed rather than try to
sneak them back in.
They also say there are additional copies of all the documents Berger
destroyed exist, and no evidence was lost.
If anyone has secret evidence that the prosecutors missed, they should
tell us immediately. Unless they think the prosecutors are also in on
it the coverup. Truly, the Clenis has great and wondrous powers.
Misdemeanor charge, $10,000 fine, loss of clearance, and Berger had to
take a polygraph. Which he passed. It's over. Justice was done. Berger
was "Rules don't apply to me" style sleazy, but there was no malice
involved. Hence the misdemeanor charge.
Don't it just suck when your whacked-out conspiracy theories are
exposed as, well, whacked-out conspiracy theories?
Berger has admitted that he stuffed top-secret documents into his
pockets, shirt, and pants,
And when Morris lies openly like this, it doesn't do much for his
credibility. What is the fascination conservatives have with things
stuffed into pants?
Greg Bernath
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Sandy Berger Rolls Over for Bill and Hill |
11 Apr 2005 06:34:35 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:37:30 +1200, "Brig. Adm. Jay Santos"
<123@123.213> in alt.abortion with message-id
<4259E2EA.256B5EBE@123.213> wrote:
Sandy Berger Rolls Over for Bill and Hill
By ***** Morris
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 8, 2005
Off topic spam.
There is no "Brigadier Admiral" you idiot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Sandy Berger Rolls Over for Bill and Hill |
11 Apr 2005 05:52:24 PM |
|
|
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:aqnk515qd9l45p8k9dkvh3lp2220u6uh86@4ax.com:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:37:30 +1200, "Brig. Adm. Jay Santos"
<123@123.213> in alt.abortion with message-id
<4259E2EA.256B5EBE@123.213> wrote:
Sandy Berger Rolls Over for Bill and Hill
By ***** Morris
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 8, 2005
Off topic spam.
you're mistaken again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Sandy Berger Rolls Over for Bill and Hill |
11 Apr 2005 07:43:26 PM |
|
|
On 11 Apr 2005 22:52:24 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<Xns9635BFFF9381Ekeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4> wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:aqnk515qd9l45p8k9dkvh3lp2220u6uh86@4ax.com:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:37:30 +1200, "Brig. Adm. Jay Santos"
<123@123.213> in alt.abortion with message-id
<4259E2EA.256B5EBE@123.213> wrote:
Sandy Berger Rolls Over for Bill and Hill
By ***** Morris
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 8, 2005
Off topic spam.
you're mistaken again.
No, I am not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Sandy Berger Rolls Over for Bill and Hill |
11 Apr 2005 07:49:27 PM |
|
|
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:2d6m51p737kupdsdf09vg7tk9o9r43jg4m@4ax.com:
On 11 Apr 2005 22:52:24 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<Xns9635BFFF9381Ekeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4> wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:aqnk515qd9l45p8k9dkvh3lp2220u6uh86@4ax.com:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:37:30 +1200, "Brig. Adm. Jay Santos"
<123@123.213> in alt.abortion with message-id
<4259E2EA.256B5EBE@123.213> wrote:
Sandy Berger Rolls Over for Bill and Hill
By ***** Morris
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 8, 2005
Off topic spam.
you're mistaken again.
No, I am not.
yes, you are.
of course there is a name for people who make posts such as the one you
made. you wouldn;t like it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Sandy Berger Rolls Over for Bill and Hill |
11 Apr 2005 08:57:22 PM |
|
|
On 12 Apr 2005 00:49:27 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<Xns9635D3D816935keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4> wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:2d6m51p737kupdsdf09vg7tk9o9r43jg4m@4ax.com:
On 11 Apr 2005 22:52:24 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<Xns9635BFFF9381Ekeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4> wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:aqnk515qd9l45p8k9dkvh3lp2220u6uh86@4ax.com:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:37:30 +1200, "Brig. Adm. Jay Santos"
<123@123.213> in alt.abortion with message-id
<4259E2EA.256B5EBE@123.213> wrote:
Sandy Berger Rolls Over for Bill and Hill
By ***** Morris
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 8, 2005
Off topic spam.
you're mistaken again.
No, I am not.
yes, you are.
of course there is a name for people who make posts such as the one you
made. you wouldn;t like it.
That reminds me or the old story - to paraphrase I have been called
worse by better people than you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Sandy Berger Rolls Over for Bill and Hill |
12 Apr 2005 06:13:46 AM |
|
|
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:0nam51ptojhhgabh5qnliqgf9uluj0ieuc@4ax.com:
On 12 Apr 2005 00:49:27 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<Xns9635D3D816935keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4> wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:2d6m51p737kupdsdf09vg7tk9o9r43jg4m@4ax.com:
On 11 Apr 2005 22:52:24 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<Xns9635BFFF9381Ekeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4> wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:aqnk515qd9l45p8k9dkvh3lp2220u6uh86@4ax.com:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:37:30 +1200, "Brig. Adm. Jay Santos"
<123@123.213> in alt.abortion with message-id
<4259E2EA.256B5EBE@123.213> wrote:
Sandy Berger Rolls Over for Bill and Hill
By ***** Morris
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 8, 2005
Off topic spam.
you're mistaken again.
No, I am not.
yes, you are.
of course there is a name for people who make posts such as the one you
made. you wouldn;t like it.
That reminds me or the old story - to paraphrase I have been called
worse by better people than you.
i am sure you have, and deseveredly. read an internet primer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Sandy Berger Rolls Over for Bill and Hill |
12 Apr 2005 09:33:26 AM |
|
|
On 12 Apr 2005 11:13:46 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<Xns9636498D69391keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4> wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:0nam51ptojhhgabh5qnliqgf9uluj0ieuc@4ax.com:
On 12 Apr 2005 00:49:27 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<Xns9635D3D816935keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4> wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:2d6m51p737kupdsdf09vg7tk9o9r43jg4m@4ax.com:
On 11 Apr 2005 22:52:24 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<Xns9635BFFF9381Ekeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4> wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:aqnk515qd9l45p8k9dkvh3lp2220u6uh86@4ax.com:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:37:30 +1200, "Brig. Adm. Jay Santos"
<123@123.213> in alt.abortion with message-id
<4259E2EA.256B5EBE@123.213> wrote:
Sandy Berger Rolls Over for Bill and Hill
By ***** Morris
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 8, 2005
Off topic spam.
you're mistaken again.
No, I am not.
yes, you are.
of course there is a name for people who make posts such as the one you
made. you wouldn;t like it.
That reminds me or the old story - to paraphrase I have been called
worse by better people than you.
i am sure you have, and deseveredly. read an internet primer.
Yes, and a big nerve at that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Sandy Berger Rolls Over for Bill and Hill |
12 Apr 2005 10:20:08 AM |
|
|
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:41nn511gt9k01m9e2l9la30oi53dg2plvr@4ax.com:
On 12 Apr 2005 11:13:46 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<Xns9636498D69391keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4> wrote:
That reminds me or the old story - to paraphrase I have been called
worse by better people than you.
i am sure you have, and deseveredly. read an internet primer.
Yes, and a big nerve at that.
you seem to feel that you have the right to dictate to others what is
approproate for them to read, rather than just decide for yourself what you
want to read.
and you are willing to lie to make your point.
you are a scumball.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Sandy Berger Rolls Over for Bill and Hill |
12 Apr 2005 12:45:24 PM |
|
|
On 12 Apr 2005 15:20:08 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<Xns96367352C358Fkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4> wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:41nn511gt9k01m9e2l9la30oi53dg2plvr@4ax.com:
On 12 Apr 2005 11:13:46 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<Xns9636498D69391keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4> wrote:
That reminds me or the old story - to paraphrase I have been called
worse by better people than you.
i am sure you have, and deseveredly. read an internet primer.
Yes, and a big nerve at that.
you seem to feel that you have the right to dictate to others what is
approproate for them to read, rather than just decide for yourself what you
want to read.
Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by
repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by
saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat
something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the
first place.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20nauseam
and you are willing to lie to make your point.
Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by
repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by
saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat
something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the
first place.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20nauseam
you are a scumball.
Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by
repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by
saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat
something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the
first place.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20nauseam
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Sandy Berger Rolls Over for Bill and Hill |
12 Apr 2005 04:23:55 PM |
|
|
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:p82o515k3038o06hsdr3ldvlbmjsmvski2@4ax.com:
On 12 Apr 2005 15:20:08 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<Xns96367352C358Fkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4> wrote:
you seem to feel that you have the right to dictate to others what is
approproate for them to read, rather than just decide for yourself
what you want to read.
you demonstrate your ignorance of the term you use, scumball, just as you
demonstrate your usenet newsgroup ignorance and your disrespect for
readers' ability to decide for themselves what is and is not appropriate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Sandy Berger Rolls Over for Bill and Hill |
12 Apr 2005 07:03:10 PM |
|
|
On 12 Apr 2005 21:23:55 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<Xns9636B0FFE54E2keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4> wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:p82o515k3038o06hsdr3ldvlbmjsmvski2@4ax.com:
On 12 Apr 2005 15:20:08 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<Xns96367352C358Fkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4> wrote:
you seem to feel that you have the right to dictate to others what is
approproate for them to read, rather than just decide for yourself
what you want to read.
you demonstrate your ignorance of the term you use, scumball, just as you
demonstrate your usenet newsgroup ignorance and your disrespect for
readers' ability to decide for themselves what is and is not appropriate.
Thus you prove my point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Sandy Berger Rolls Over for Bill and Hill |
12 Apr 2005 07:30:10 PM |
|
|
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:7doo5154aelc6b4mna8tmpvbkhdp9m9b57@4ax.com:
On 12 Apr 2005 21:23:55 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<Xns9636B0FFE54E2keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4> wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:p82o515k3038o06hsdr3ldvlbmjsmvski2@4ax.com:
On 12 Apr 2005 15:20:08 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<Xns96367352C358Fkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4> wrote:
you seem to feel that you have the right to dictate to others what
is approproate for them to read, rather than just decide for
yourself what you want to read.
you demonstrate your ignorance of the term you use, scumball, just as
you demonstrate your usenet newsgroup ignorance and your disrespect
for readers' ability to decide for themselves what is and is not
appropriate.
Thus you prove my point.
you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of the terms you use,
scumball, just as you demonstrate your usenet newsgroup ignorance and
your disrespect for readers' ability to decide for themselves what is
and is not appropriate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Sandy Berger Rolls Over for Bill and Hill |
13 Apr 2005 08:03:25 AM |
|
|
On 13 Apr 2005 00:30:10 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<Xns9636D09332786keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4> wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:7doo5154aelc6b4mna8tmpvbkhdp9m9b57@4ax.com:
On 12 Apr 2005 21:23:55 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<Xns9636B0FFE54E2keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4> wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:p82o515k3038o06hsdr3ldvlbmjsmvski2@4ax.com:
On 12 Apr 2005 15:20:08 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<Xns96367352C358Fkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4> wrote:
you seem to feel that you have the right to dictate to others what
is approproate for them to read, rather than just decide for
yourself what you want to read.
you demonstrate your ignorance of the term you use, scumball, just as
you demonstrate your usenet newsgroup ignorance and your disrespect
for readers' ability to decide for themselves what is and is not
appropriate.
Thus you prove my point.
you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of the terms you use,
scumball, just as you demonstrate your usenet newsgroup ignorance and
your disrespect for readers' ability to decide for themselves what is
and is not appropriate.
And thus you continue to prove my point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Sandy Berger Rolls Over for Bill and Hill |
13 Apr 2005 09:59:01 AM |
|
|
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:n46q51l6nleg1ts6fs3m9i05st2s28kfht@4ax.com:
On 13 Apr 2005 00:30:10 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<Xns9636D09332786keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4> wrote:
you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of the terms you use,
scumball, just as you demonstrate your usenet newsgroup ignorance and
your disrespect for readers' ability to decide for themselves what is
and is not appropriate.
And thus you continue to prove my point.
you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of the terms you use,
scumball, just as you demonstrate your usenet newsgroup ignorance and
your disrespect for readers' ability to decide for themselves what is
and is not appropriate.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
