You are right that the details are sketchy to nail down, especially
the tripe about a respected ex-national security adviser stuffing
classified documents into his underwear. What you guys are doing is
repeating a lot of unsubstantiated rumor. Serious reports acknowledge
that the items taken were as I described. Try reading the news
reports instead of reading Usenet.
A mistake which he has already admitted to. Did it hurt national
security? The Republican chairman of the 9/11 commission does not
Typical knee-jerk Republican response. More eager to see nefarious
wrongdoing than to ask plausible questions about motivation, to be
able to think critically about a topic.
If you bothered to read the news you would know that the government
and the 9/11 committee already knows which documents were in question.
Clearly specified by Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 commission, in
the above link.
No, but I read more than one news source which is apparently more than
Oddly, I am seeing that Berger admitted a mistake in _thinking_ he was
only stealing a photocopy rather than the original. If I missed that
difference, apparently he did as well.
What did Kerry know and when did he know it? He only kicked the guy off his
advisory staff once found out...
Then why did he admit to doing it and say it was a mistake?
I'm pretty comfortable that Berger's own admission is pretty obvious,
yes. What disturbs me is that Kerry either didn't know it and acted on
the best information he had which was incomplete, or he knew it and didn't
care. (Note that I am using a leftie's anti-Bush tactic here. How does it
Really? Berger admitted sloppiness in removing handwritten notes and
copies, nothing more. Nobody claims any original documents are
missing. This is confirmed by the Republican chair of the 9/11
What's more, the FBI agents investigating it for the last several
months said they did not regard the Berger inquiry "as a front-burner
type of investigation."
Much ado about (almost) nothing.
Who says Kerry knew anything? Who says there was anything to know?
You guys are jumping from unnamed sources accusing a reputable
ex-national security adviser of stuffing classified documents in
underwear and socks (pretty silly on the face of it) to hiding info
from the 9/11 commission (which has already been refuted by the 9/11
commission) to Kerry being behind it all (which seems like blatant
political slander to me). Absolutely ridiculous.
I'll ask again: Maybe you can explain to me what possible motivation
Berger would have to steal copies of memos that the 9/11 commission
has already seen?
Because it was a breach of protocols and sloppy handling of classified
documents. Why is that a mystery?
I'm not sure I follow what you are driving at with your "leftie's
anti-Bush tactic." Why do you think it's Kerry's job (or even
appropriate) to know the details for how Berger prepared for testimony
and how he testified for the 9/11 commission?
If he's got Berger as an adviser, that means that Berger is honest enough
to meet Kerry's standards, right? I mean, who would have an adviser they
At some point, Kerry learned that Berger had removed these documents.
When did he learn? If he learned a while ago and kept Berger on staff,
it's because he doesn't care about dishonesty. If he learned about it
only right before we did, and kicked Berger out then, why is his own
staff able to do this sort of criminal activity without Kerry knowing?
Either he knew and accepted dishonest advisers, or he didn't know
through a personal failing of his own. Does the analogy make more
sense to you now? Are your irony detectors going off yet? Do you
see the tactic that I am referring to?
You're way out on a limb here. I don't see why I should debate
Kerry's theoretical knowledge of a hypothetical wrongdoing and then
speculate about what he knew and when he knew it.
Besides, if we apply your impractical standard uniformly, then any of
Bush's associates that have made a mistake should likewise resign.
That would be what, half his cabinet?
You are trying to ask questions that are really thinly-veiled innuendo
about the honesty of both Berger and Kerry, and that innuendo is not
substantiated by known facts. I don't see much evidence of dishonesty
here. Apparently neither does the FBI or the 9/11 commission (see
prev links). What I do see are a few politicos trying like heck to
manufacture a little stink and hoping it will stick on Kerry.
The problem here is that Kerry has absolutely no authority over Berger
with regard to anything related to the 9/11 testimony. And Berger has
already resigned as an unpaid adviser to Kerry. What are you trying
to point out? That Kerry's advisers resign as soon as error is
apparent -- but Bush's guys refuse to resign despite much bigger
Of course I recognized the analogy you were trying to draw on your
first posting; it seems as spurious now as it did then. Equating
Sandy Berger with the war in Iraq is too ridiculous to bother with.
Berger admitted wrongdoing. Presumably (follow me here, Nate), at some
pointhe admitted wrongdoing to his boss, Kerry. When did that happen?
Did it happen right before Kerry said "Er, yeah, go away please", or
did it happen a long time ago? If it happened long ago, and Kerry only
told him to take a hike once the wrongdoing became public, then I have
a problem with that.
Aha, so you _are_ seeing the tactic I'm referring to. Shoe on the other
foot and all that, how's it feel?
Berger admitted he did wrong. Kerry now knows about it, so he learned
about it at some time. Nothing thinly veiled here, by the way, I'm asking
if Kerry just found out and kicked him out (which would be OK), or found
out a while ago and only kicked him out once it became public (which would
Do they? How long ago did _Berger_ know he did this stuff?
Yeah, because they're completely different tactics, right.
I follow you just fine. Your logic just stinks. You are trying to
draw a parallel between Berger-Kerry and
Rumsfield-Rice-Tenet-Cheney-Bush. Berger is an unpaid adviser to
Kerry, and resigned at the first sign of flap. The 9/11 commission
thinks this is a matter that had no effect on their report.
Tenet, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, etc are all subordinates to Bush.
Bush directly approved (and advocated) their findings. They screwed
up on a matter of dire importance (WMDs) that led to the US starting a
preemptive war that costs hundreds of billions and at least a thousand
For you to continue to try to draw such a weak analogy is just silly.
Rumors of underwear stuffing do not go in the same league as
It makes me feel like I'm discussing a topic with a guy who
desperately wants to draw false and exaggerated analogies.
Who knows? Who cares? What difference does it make except that you
want to sling some mud that you hope will stick to Kerry? Yeah, Kerry
and Berger are both Democrats. Yeah, Berger provides free advice to
the Kerry campaign. So what? Do you really want to engage in some
kind of Kerry vs Bush comparison of guild by third-degree association?
I think Bush would lose.
Yeah, they are completely different tactics.
One is presuming guilt beyond the evidence, assuming subordinate
relationships that don't exist, and exaggerating rumors to create a
minor scandal -- which is what you have done.
The other is questioning the judgement of our elected leaders and
their direct subordinates on matters that have been directly proven to
be false and have directly observable consequences to American life.
Drawing strained analogies between Sandy Berger's socks or underwear
or whatever and Bush's performance in Iraq is not likely to be helpful
to your cause.
See, this here is our fundamental difference. If Kerry knew about it
and didn't care until the press found out, that shows a trait which I
do not welcome in a President. Document-stealing aside, ignoring an
adviser's problems until the press finds out isn't the way things should
Is this going anywhere, Nate, or should we just agree to disagree?
Okay, well let's say that hypothetically Berger's error was actually
intentional, and hypothetically that Kerry was responsible for Berger,
and that hypothetically that Kerry knew about it. I guess that
hypothetically then Berger should resign or be fired. Of course he
Hypothetically, if you want to blame Kerry then you have to show that
Kerry was responsible for Berger and that he knew about wrongdoing.
Of course if you want to belive that all of the evil liberals are
crooks, then it's easy to imagine the conclusion you want regardless
of any available information.
Well, I think it's pretty pointless. Even the congressional
Republicans only grandstanded on this for one day.
Al Reid posits:
Bit of a stretch from my short list, which I edited with a heavy handy out of
compassion for conservatives--always a mistake, I see.
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that
it is his duty." George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1901)
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.