Joe Sick Posted July 13, 2005 Author Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by portisizzle Click......Bang........ :doh: Wrong again, both you and Ghost. Looks like you are firing blanks. This was the point of my whole post, that people believe the talking points more than the actual facts. You should be glad I'm here to correct you guys. Also validates my point that republicans are better at attacking a person than defending their own actions. Thanks for proving me right, once again! :laugh: ---------------- From the WSJ (or any other news site if you had bothered to look.) ------------- Officials looking into the removal of classified documents from the National Archives by former Clinton National Security Adviser Samuel Berger say no original materials are missing and nothing Mr. Berger reviewed was withheld from the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Several prominent Republicans, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, have voiced suspicion that when Mr. Berger was preparing materials for the 9/11 Commission on the Clinton administration's antiterror actions, he may have removed documents that were potentially damaging to the former president's record. The conclusion by archives officials and others would seem to lay to rest the issue of whether any information was permanently destroyed or withheld from the commission. Archives spokeswoman Susan Cooper said officials there "are confident that there aren't any original documents missing in relation to this case." She said in most cases, Mr. Berger was given photocopies to review, and that in any event officials have accounted for all originals to which he had access. That included all drafts of a so-called after-action report prepared by the White House and federal agencies in 2000 after the investigation into a foiled bombing plot aimed at the Millennium celebrations. That report and earlier drafts are at the center of allegations that Mr. Berger might have permanently removed some records from the archives. Some of the allegations have related to the possibility that drafts with handwritten notes on them may have disappeared, but Ms. Cooper said archives staff are confident those documents aren't missing either. Daniel Marcus, general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, said the panel had been assured twice by the Justice Department that no originals were missing and that all of the material Mr. Berger had access to had been turned over to the commission. "We are told that the Justice Department is satisfied that we've seen everything that the archives saw," and "nothing was missing," he said. ------- Also funny how far the conversation has deviated. Indefensible perhaps? Waiting for the next memo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Joe Sick, would you link that article for the other WSJ subscribers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by Hooper This is hilarious. If Clinton was in power and this happened, pretty much his entire administration would be in jail right now. That said, I am so disgusted by both sides of the aisle right now. When did politics become like sports? No one ever gives an inch and admits that yeah, someone in their party really messed up, or that someone from the other party may have a good point about something. It's a f'in joke and our great country is suffering because of it. Rove isn't going down unless Fitzgerald indicts him. This all depends on whether you believe crimes were committed in one case vs. another. I already detailed the manipulation and corruption of the Justice Department by Clinton. Now, if Rove IS guilty of this, then sure. But if it turns that Plame was not a field agent and does not meet the terms specified(wasnt' she on a Vanity Fair cover?) then he shouldn't go down. As for politics being like sports, it's been like that for some time. It's just more public and adolescent than before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted July 13, 2005 Author Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by iheartskins Joe Sick, would you link that article for the other WSJ subscribers? Sorry, I'm not a subscriber, either. Just google "Sandy Berger cleared" and you'll get a lot of hits. This was a repost of a media matters quote at the time. http://mediamatters.org/items/200407300008 http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/07/index.html#003374 I guess the link on the side explains why some people didn't pick up this info. "FOX continued Berger smears and failed to report that "no original materials are missing" --- If he WASN'T cleared, don't you think we would've heard something about it by now, especially as much as Republicans were calling for an investigation at the time? --- Now back to the outing of a covert agent... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted July 13, 2005 Author Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin Now, if Rove IS guilty of this, then sure. But if it turns that Plame was not a field agent and does not meet the terms specified(wasnt' she on a Vanity Fair cover?) then he shouldn't go down. So it's not a matter of if this was the RIGHT thing to do, it only matters if he is found guilty or not? BTW, I am still not sure that Rove will be guilty under the "outing a CIA agent" law. He may well be found guilty of perjury. However, if Rove didn't have clearance for this bit of "need to know" info, the person that TOLD him will be the more traitorous one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty P For The Pulitzer Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by du7st It is clear as day what Bush was trying to do in that speech. Save your lawyer tricks for someone else - they won't work on me - I'm not a Democrat. You Republican lapdogs can remember to drag Clinton into every discussion but you can never remember to bring any logic or wisdom. Lawyer tricks? No I'm just not ignoring basic semantics. Saying you sought something and bought something are two different things. Someone with as much logic as you should surely understand that. I'm no Republican, but you sure sound like a Democrat the way you twist Bush's words to imply something he didn't say to back your agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by Joe Sick Sorry, I'm not a subscriber, either. Just google "Sandy Berger cleared" and you'll get a lot of hits. This was a repost of a media matters quote at the time. http://mediamatters.org/items/200407300008 http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/07/index.html#003374 I guess the link on the side explains why some people didn't pick up this info. "FOX continued Berger smears and failed to report that "no original materials are missing" --- If he WASN'T cleared, don't you think we would've heard something about it by now, especially as much as Republicans were calling for an investigation at the time? --- Now back to the outing of a covert agent... JS, man you really need to get a clue t because you are are pretty ignorant on things. CLEARED??? Man SB pleaded guilty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! From the WP: FRIDAY, JULY 8 Washington - Sentencing in federal court for Sandy Berger, President Clinton's top national security aide who pleaded guilty in April to taking classified documents from the National Archives and cutting them up. Berger sentencing NOT cleared as claimed!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Strong words from a Bush supporter -- Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counter-terrorism official at the State Department, offered a devastating assessment of the Plame Game.. Bush's supporters who are desperately arguing that the illegal leaks aren't a "big deal" should definitely consider what Johnson had to say. "This is not an alleged abuse," Johnson said. "This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it. "So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people who innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just an analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's out them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat. "I say this as a registered Republican. I'm on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear of an individual with no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it. His entire intent was correctly as Ambassador Wilson noted: to intimidate, to suggest that there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy and frankly, what was a false policy of suggesting that there were nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend that it's something else and to get into this parsing of words, I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec03/leaks_09-30.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by Fatty P For The Pulitzer Lawyer tricks? No I'm just not ignoring basic semantics. Saying you sought something and bought something are two different things. good thing Sadaam didn't use a cell-phone while trying to buy the goods.... that'll get him four months in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Two conservative media outlets with accurate information out of the sea of liberal bias. There shouldn't be any comments for an ongoing investigation unlike liberals who already want Rove to resign or be fired before the investigation is complete. Notice how the leading liberals are vocal but Hillary is slickly just nodding her head in agreement but not putting herself out there. The Democrats and liberal media new talking points are going to be Rove lied to the President and should be fired. Prediction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 "There shouldn't be any comments for an ongoing investigation unlike liberals who already want Rove to resign or be fired before the investigation is complete. " Not saying you're wrong, but the right hardly practiced this when Clinton was in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan Maybe Lincoln?? Nope, not him either. He spent years looking for his general to drive the south into the turf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Originally posted by Hooper "There shouldn't be any comments for an ongoing investigation unlike liberals who already want Rove to resign or be fired before the investigation is complete. " Not saying you're wrong, but the right hardly practiced this when Clinton was in office. I for one did not want Clinton to resign An Al Gore presidencey scared me much more then a John Kerry presidencey. And no way in 2000 would we have voted Al Gore out of office (unless some economic/terrorist catastrophe occured) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.