Stole what, Berger's pants? Looks from here like Berger's the thief.
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Isn't he one of Kerry's election advisors, or is that another person of
the same name? If it's the same guy, hardly fits the definition of
a "neocon" (whatever that's supposed to be...), and probably not much
of a "trusted advisor".
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 19:08:17 -0600, Dave Balderstone
So, just so I have this straight, one of John Kerry's election advisers,
and Clinton's National Security Adviser, removed documents critical to
the 9/11 investigation from the National Archives?
What other scoundrels and/or Clinton leftovers (but I repeat myself) is
John Kerry keeping the company of? Doesn't say much for Kerry's judgement
if he had this sort of person advising him. Brings up the question -
Did Kerry not know, or did he not care? I mean, pretty big thing not
to mention in the job interview, isn't it? So did Berger lie to
Kerry about having a very tarnished past, or did Kerry know about it
and not care?
This guy is looking more and more like SlickWillie all the time.
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:12:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone
abcnews.com has it as well, so the people who ignore Fox can't claim
it's just them. Looks like now that his adviser has been found out,
Kerry has given him the heave-ho. Obviously it's not the deed that
bothers Kerry, it's that Berger was caught. Good to know that Kerry
is following in his apparent role-model's footsteps. (NOT)
Slipperier and slipperier all the time. Cue the "waaah, you can't use
guilt by association" apologists in 3...2...1...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 01:30:02 +0000, Dave Hinz wrote:
One of the others on his re-election commitee is Joe Wilson, the nuetral,
independent, objective investigator of the Yellowcake/Niger Bush lies
false statements in his State of the Union address. Turns out his
investigation was a farce, the false documents weren't the basis for the
intelligence, his CIA employeed wife _did_ get him the trip to Niger to
"investigate" and the British and our home grown investigators have
completely discredited him.
I got a kick out of Daschle today saying Berger"should be given the
benefit of the doubt" as if they haven't jumped on every unfounded piece
of crap they can throw against the wall against Bush.
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
I wasn't aware that Berger's PAST was tarnished, though it will be now.
I'm sure that not everyone in BJ's administration was dishonest, though
I have to base that on general principal rather than specific evidence,
same as with Baby Bush's administration. Hmm, Laura looks honest.
Wilson was never assigned to investigate false statements made in
the State of the Union message. He was assigned to investigate the
allegation that Iraq had tried to import yellowcake from Niger.
Based on what, exactly? Please cite _something_.
Yet those forgeries WERE submitted to the IAEA and were misrepresented
to the IAEA as authentic.
Indeed, she did recommend him for the task. Can anyone explain
how the fact that fact alone could mean he was unsuitable or biased?
Does anyone claim that his wife, a field agent, had so much authority
that she could get him picked for the job over better qualified
Please be specific in your answers, please cite something.
Again, they say there was a basis for the claim but cite no evidence
beyond the fact that Niger received a single trade delegation from
According to Bush there is an old saying in Texas, maybe you never
heard it: "Fool us once, shame on you... and we won't be fooled
again!" It's rather good advice, from your good buddy Baby Bush.
How about if you try it out?
He's admitted to it. Doesn't leave much room for doubt. I can see
taking notes to be used for his testimony, but not sneaking them out.
he should have submitted his notes for review. And there is no
way he can justify removing anything of the stored materials, even
if it wasn't classified!
True. The following is part of what I got from an old friend yesterday. Kind of
sums up my opinion of Bush & Babies.
"Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy
made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy
when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with
China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest
national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches
while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to
all Americans is socialism.
A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.
A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid
"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)
This should be an unbiased list, I bet. Let's see...
Right, because it's impossible for someone to go from "tolerable" to
"intolerable", is that it?
You are actually proposing that the war in Iraq was a diversion about
finding Bin Laden? You must be aware of all of the Democrats who also
held Hussein to be a danger and someone who must be stopped, right? The
whole thing with the UN inspections being deferred for a decade, that
Because of course, Cuba, China, and Vietnam are exactly the same in
regard to physical proximity, degree of intensity, and so on, riiiiight.
Even the UN, in their perpetual bickering and ineffectiveness, was able
to see that Iraq was a problem.
Cite please? Clinton's legacy in regards to military pay and benefits
is blisteringly clear - as with most recent Democrat presidents, the
military (and it's members and their families) suffered under him.
The democrats failed to do anything about this during the 8 years Clinton
was president as well.
A president lying under oath to congress, is an impeachable offense, yes.
A president acting on best available information to make decisions
(that even your boy Kerry agreed with and you know it), you mean.
I was one of a lot of Republicans who understand that war (viz. killing
people and destroying things) should be the absolute last resort. We
were told that Afghanistan was harboring Bin Laden and had been since
the Clinton administration. He was proven to be responsible, in the
main, for 9/11. To attack with the intent of destroying Al Qaeda and
removing its leadership: OK.
We sent in enough troops to scatter the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Both are
still very much in business. We bungled the operation.
Insofar as Iraq was concerned, we saw no evidence of WMDs. The aluminum
tubing and yellow cake incidents were debunked in the newspapers long
before the State of the Union address. We attacked anyway. Big
mistake. We have had several changes of reasons for attacking including
the current favorite: we are better off without Saddam. Puke. Now the
administration has lost all credibility. Toss in the multi-trillion
dollar national debt (much of which is held by Asian countries) and you
get two reasons why I cannot vote for Bush.
I vote for those whose policies more closely follow my research and
thinking regardless of party or label. I left the Republican party when
a nephew informed me that I was not really a Republican anyway. I am
now an independent which makes more sense. I value honesty and
competence rather highly. The current administration displays precious
little of these commodities. I will be voting for John Kerry.
Same here. In 2000 my candidate of choice was John McCain.
Previously I often (but not always) voted Republican.
But today's Republican party isn't really the Republican party of old.
Visionary Republican presidents like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and
Eisenhower wouldn't have a chance in today's Republican party --
they'd be branded as "liberals."
It used to be that the country had an understanding of what it meant
to be a Rockefeller Republican or a Southern Democrat. It used to be
that the parties understood what it meant to have a big tent. It used
to be that the parties worked for inclusion and consensus. Now the
Republicans are all racing each other to see who can move the farthest
to the right. The Democrats are confused in their message,
alternately trying to pander to the left to win the nomination and
then to move to the center so they can be elected, and are really only
unified by a common dislike of the incumbent.
And Bush is so inflexible and simplistic in his approach to
complicated long-term problems that you have to go back to the days of
Harding and Coolidge to find anything similar. Lots of people voted
for him because he promised to be a consensus builder, and would all
have our cake and eat it too. Now that the people know Bush, many
will be more skeptical the second time around.
At its core, this election is really about whether or not you believe
that Bush has screwed things up, and whether or not you believe that
Kerry is likely to do a better or a worse job. Myself, I will be
voting for Anybody But Bush.
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.