Re: no media bias here
 

I didn't hear that, but WOW!

I wonder what would happen if Dr. Rice did the same thing?

"Token Negro Condeleeza Rice was caught stealing national secrets for arab terrorists today...".

may I add:

Token Negro Condeleeza Rice was caught stealing national secrets for arab terrorists today, it is said by Richard Clarke and Elite filmmaker Micheal Moore that even though the secrets were taken AFTER 9-11-01 that this act may have caused the hijackings.

Re: no media bias here
 

Two things.

First, your quote has a "..." in it, which usually means something was deleted. Was that a pause, or was the quote edited?

Second, I assume that your position is that a fair and balanced report would leave out the White House's political motivation for leaking this story two days before the 9/11 report. There are no non-political reasons for their having leaked this story now. The White House has known about the Berger investigation for a long time, so the leak seems to come late. On the other hand, the FBI hasn't even interviewed Berger yet, so the leak is also too early.

I am part of what Hannity calls the Blame America First Crowd, so don't go by me, but it just seems newsworthy that our President is willing to play partisan political games with our national security. The timing of the Berger leak is newsworthy, though not surprising because Bush's entire approach to the 9/11 Commission has been nothing but political throughout.

As for your search for what the story would be if Condi Rice had done was Berger did, I think the quote would have been something like, "Condi Rice proves once again that she has no clue." In other words, maybe the news would get it right for a change.

"..."
 

Sorry. Should have been:

"Sandy Berger, who was National Security Adviser under President Clinton stepped aside today as an adviser to Senator John Kerry. CBS's John Roberts reports this was triggered by a carefully orchestrated leak about Berger and the timing of it appears to be no coincidence."

Still misses the point.

At this point we don't even know what the central story is. As far as your assertion that Berger should have broke this story, Mr. Berger had no responsibility to do anything in this, in fact any lawyer will tell you he was probably doing exactly what his attorney told him to do - keep his mouth shut, so don't put responsibilty for not exposing himself off on him-to do otherwise is stupid.

Mr. Berger also has a right to presumption of innocence and a right to an impartial jury. Whoever leaked this information actually damaged the governement's case against Mr. Berger and showed an attitude towards justice and individual rights that simply continues to illustrate the kind of people we have running this country. At this point, he has been convicted in the rightwing press before he is even arrested. To me, its a real contest as to which one of the participants in this has sunk lower - Berger, or his antagonists. Given the importance of the 911 report to the country, I vote the Bushies as the lower of the two.

What's even more hilarious is Rep Chris Cox, who has announced his committee will now investigate Berger. Mr. Cox, where have you been? Did you miss the news on Valerie Plame? Spare me the "what if Condi" stories. This administration is corrupt enough to cover Condi's ass if she gets into trouble- they are doing it every day for the person on their staff who feloniously outed this CIA agent.

I say leave him twisting in the wind
 

Published on Friday, July 23, 2004 by the Madison Capital Times (Wisconsin)
No Defense for Sandy Berger
Editorial

Democrats in Congress, particularly Democrats who oppose the Bush administration's misguided war with Iraq, make a huge mistake when they attempt to defend Sandy Berger, who served as former President Bill Clinton's national security adviser and who now stands accused of stealing and destroying classified materials on terrorism.

Berger has for many years been an atrocious player in American politics. He tried to get former President Clinton to launch a war with Iraq in the late 1990s, using "evidence" every bit as flimsy as that employed by the Bush administration in 2003. He has been a Democratic apologist for some of the Bush administration's worst abuses. And, as a senior adviser to John Kerry's presidential campaign, he pressured the presumptive Democratic nominee to echo the Bush administration line on maintaining the occupation of Iraq.

In 2003, when Berger was preparing to testify before the national commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, he spent roughly 30 hours reviewing classified materials in a secure reading room. Berger was seen placing documents in a leather portfolio and stuffing papers in his jacket and pants.

Berger claims his removal of the documents, which may have contained material harmful to his own reputation, was an "honest mistake." Yet, when National Archives officials demanded that Berger return the documents and paperwork, he produced only some of them and then claimed to have "inadvertently" destroyed the rest. Berger's actions were shocking. And his defenses do not sound credible.

Berger should be prosecuted, just as anyone in the Bush administration who attempted to undermine the work of the 9/11 commission should be prosecuted. Yet some of the Democrats who have been most critical of Bush administration abuses have tried to come up with excuses for Berger. By rushing to the partisan barricades in defense of Berger, they are making a big mistake.

While it may be true that Republicans are ginning up the Berger controversy at this point in order to cover for the misdeeds of members of their own party, Democrats should not waste an ounce of energy defending the former Clinton aide.

In fact, Democrats should be celebrating the fact that he has been forced to resign as an adviser to Kerry. The further Berger is from the Kerry campaign, the more likely it will be to take responsible stands on the war in Iraq in particular, and on national security in general.

Copyright 2004 The Capital Times

Like you, I'm not sure what the central story is. About the only thing I can say about this story is that we now have the second consecutive National Security Advisor who lacks the sense to get in out of the rain. That is no joke, either.

To answer your question, Bush/Cheney's political games are not trivial in any respect.

Who cares whether Berger should have disclosed the story? I was referring to Bush/Cheney, not Berger. Unless someone finds strong evidence exonerating them in this matter, I will remain confident that Bush/Cheney leaked the story for partisan political reasons. Nothing new for politicians to do that, but few political stunts relate so directly to our national security.

From what I have read the entire question of truth here revolves around the interpretation of one or two sentences. I have posted elsewhere on this forum Mr. Wilson's heated rebuttal to what looks like payback from the Republican dominated committee. Mr. Wilson is the one who blew the whole WMD thing wide open and exposed it for the hollow fraud that it has turned out to be, and he made major enemies in both the American and British Intelligence Services, who along with Bush would have gotten away with this fraud if he had kept his mouth shut. For that alone he deserves high praise. The unprecendented trumped up and non existent threats this administration used as an excuse to hijack 911 to pursue an Iraq war needed to be exposed.

There is still nothing that rises to the level of "proof" from any side. No shipment of uranium ever went anywhere, no money ever changed hands and no agreement was ever made. In the end, the same conclusion the 911 commission draws is still staring you in the face: Saddam was simply not a threat. This is just more of the grasp-at-any-straw baloney that is supposed to serve as justifcation for committing military mass murder on civilian populations in Iraq.

Joe's memory
 

It seems as though something is missing here. It's beginning to appear that most of Joe's book ramblings aren't based in fact, yet that's not the issue (even though he ought to return his journalism truth teller award). Now we’re to believe the issue is some sort Republican/British CIA/MI6 vendetta against Joe because he's rightous truth-telling dude.

However Joe's got a few credibility problems. Not the least of which are these: 1.) Joe didn't fess up that Val Gal recommended him for the jaunt to Niger and 2.), when told Iraq had visited Niger and had discussed trade relations between the two countries, dismisses the idea that the trade talk focus was yellow cake (I think Uranium exports are 90+% of Niger's economy). To suggest that these facts are somehow subject to devaluation because they don't come from Joe's book (which of course is not the least self-serving), Michael Moore or other AL (Angry Left) sources but now purported to be the product of some Bush/Cheney, Blair/MI6 character assassination plan is patently absurd.

NO ONE ever said that Saddam had ACQUIRED uranium. The statements were (and always have been) about multiple ATTEMPS TO ACQUIRE uranium and other WMD capabilities. Those statements were true, are true and will remain true.

NO ONE said Iraq was an imminent threat. The statements were that Iraq, by pursuing its WMD plans and policies WOULD BECOME an imminent threat.

To maintain the belief that "Bush Lied" because he gave voice to what the Clinton administration leadership thought and the best intelligence in the world concluded (I'm being charitable in lumping in the CIA with MI6 and whatever the Russian's call their intelligence apparatus these days), is utter folly.

The UN and the US congress, in possession of basically the same intelligence analyzed by the Clinton and Bush administrations (as well as the Blair government), approved action against Iraq. To suggest that because some of the intelligence was not as good as it should (in the ideal world) have been, then the action against Iraq is “illegitimate” is intellectually dishonest.

I think what pisses the wacko-left off most is that Bush told the truth. Bush told Iraq (and the world) that if you don’t come clean and show us what you’ve got and what and how you got rid of the stuff you weren’t supposed to have, we will come it and take it from there. I think that most politicos thought this was posturing and that at the 11th hour, Bush would back down. He didn’t.

Re: Joe's memory
 

http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/...tomo/story.jpg

Re: Joe's memory
 

What an odd thing to say. Why would you say something so utterly false? Don't you think it weakens the other points you are trying to make?

Your thinking of the 911 commission. The senate committee reflects the majority held by the R's in the Senate. They direct what goes in, and keep anything out they don't like.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by KyGuy
...NO ONE said Iraq was an imminent threat. The statements were that Iraq, by pursuing its WMD plans and policies WOULD BECOME an imminent threat...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I am not even going to bother digging up all the Bush and Cheney quotes where they said that Iraq was imminent threat over and over again. This is just laughable at this point. I see propaganda and dis-information working their way here. This is just plain Orwellian.