OT: At least there was one

Page 4 of 4  


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 think so: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/07/23/national1120EDT0526.DTL

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 you do.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:33:32 -0500, "Todd Fatheree"

the guy has a HUGE workload. he was taking them home to *read* them....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Riiiiight, he removed highly sensitive documents from a controlled area to do a little homework.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I did.

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 feel?)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 commission.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/07/23/national1120EDT0526.DTL http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5463586 /
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." http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-07-21-bush-berger_x.htm
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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 don't trust?
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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


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 screwups?
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 be Clinton-esque).

Do they? How long ago did _Berger_ know he did this stuff?

Yeah, because they're completely different tactics, right.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 American lives.
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 international wars.

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 be done.
Is this going anywhere, Nate, or should we just agree to disagree?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 did resign.
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Not any more.
I guess no one thought it odd for someone from BJ Clinton's cabinet to be seen walking out of the office with a bulge in his pants.
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Y'all realize of course that this is just another facet of Hilary's vast right wing conspiracy that caught Slick Willie with his pants down.
--
-JR
Hung like Einstein and smart as a horse
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Al Reid posits:
Nonsense.
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.
Charlie Self "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)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Complete and utter lack of a substantive response, and the inherent evasion, noted.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    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.