VERDICT in Scooter Libby Trial

[Burgold]

Yup. Same exact crime. Perjury about an affair. Perjury about a CIA leak investigation. Exact same thing in my book.

[redskins2redskins]

I think he should be pardoned before he serves any jail time.............he was a fall guy in all that mess,just think about how many others are sitting pretty:doh:

[aREDSKIN]

Good point. Though I disagree that one is worse than the other. Both acts are pretty reprehensible in my mind.

It is?? The ONLY thing Libby was found, at least at this point in time, is lying to that POS Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald knew it was Armitage who leaked her name and as it turns out she wasn't even covert. Fitzgerald never had the balls to charge Libbys with outing Plame because he knew he didn't. Berger STOLE national intelligence secrets and he gets off with a slap on the wrist. Moral equivalency right.

[aREDSKIN]

Because it's mostly bunk. During 9/11 investigation everybody was interested in what Clinton had done and comparing that to what Bush had done. Bush followers were trying to blame Clinton. Burger was the national security adviser and both testified himself and helped prepare Clinton's testomony.

Burger did not have the documents he needed to prepare his testomony, and the entire 911 panel was high politics. The documents which Burger needed and had a right to were being given to him a few at a time and he wasn't allowed to make notes. So he took the documents to prepare his testomony.

Burger didn't take originals, he only had access to copies. Burger only months before had been authorized do this months earlier under Clinton. That he wasn't given the authoriazation under Bush is where the politics occur.

He was the national security director for years. Why is he unworthy of carrying classified documents pertaining to his tenure only under the Bush administration?

You're clueless or Sandy Berger's son.

[JMS]

I think he should be pardoned before he serves any jail time.............he was a fall guy in all that mess,just think about how many others are sitting pretty:doh:

? excuse me? If he's the fall guy it's only because he sheilded Cheney and Roove. His lawyer used this line of reasoning. Scooter's just the fall guy. If he would have said Cheney told him to break the law, so he did it. To begin with then he wouldn't be in jail for purjury.

As for this being the same crime as Clinton's. I think that's about right. Although Clinton had the additional crime of sexual harrassment.

Clinton makes a pass at three ladies. One with a paid job and two with unpaid jobs working under him. The one with the paid job protests and is fired. One with an unpaid job keeps quiet about it and get's a six figure paid position on permanent junket to Europe. The other with an unpaid job encourages his advances and gets a six figure job in New York which Clinton lined up for her.

Clinton should have been impeached and served jail time too.

[JMS]

You're clueless or Sandy Berger's son.

I think I have quite a few clues. If you care to be specific perhaps we could discuss where you think I'm in error.

Facts,

• Berger only had access to copies of classified documents.
  
• Berger wasn't trying to change the record
  
• Berger wasn't trying to cover up what he and Clinton had done
  
• Berger was only trying to prepare his and Clinton's testomony for the 911 hearings.
  
• Berger was national security director for 4 years under Clinton
  
• Before national security director Berger was deputy national security director for 4 additional years.
  
• Berger was provided under the Bush administration with acess to his documents in an almost unusable forum.
  

a. No Notes

b. No copies.

c. Only a few documents at a time.

The only reason Berger stole the documents in the first place is because Bush administration was screwing with him and Clinton and it was the only way he could prepare for his 911 testomony. He was the deputy national security director for 4 years. He was the national security director for 4 years. He certainly had the clearances to see the documents he took.

He also had the authority to keep these documents in his possession while in office under clinton only a few months before he is accused of taking them.

[Duckus]

You're clueless or Sandy Berger's son.

Well that was really insightful. Maybe you should attempt to make a counter point of some sort instead of a lame insult. I have not followed the case closely about Sandy Berger so I will not pretend to know if you are JMS is right, but at least JMS puts down his thoughts in a rational argument.

[Sarge]

I think I have quite a few clues. If you care to be specific perhaps we could discuss where you think I'm in error.

Facts,

• Berger only had access to copies of classified documents.
  
• Berger wasn't trying to change the record
  
• Berger wasn't trying to cover up what he and Clinton had done
  
• Berger was only trying to prepare his and Clinton's testomony for the 911 hearings.
  
• Berger was national security director for 4 years under Clinton
  
• Before national security director Berger was deputy national security director for 4 additional years.
  
• Berger was provided under the Bush administration with acess to his documents in an almost unusable forum.
  

a. No Notes

b. No copies.

c. Only a few documents at a time.

The only reason Berger stole the documents in the first place is because Bush administration was screwing with him and Clinton and it was the only way he could prepare for his 911 testomony. He was the deputy national security director for 4 years. He was the national security director for 4 years. He certainly had the clearances to see the documents he took.

He also had the authority to keep these documents in his possession while in office under clinton only a few months before he is accused of taking them.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061220/D8M4R7DO0.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former national security adviser Sandy Berger removed classified documents from the National Archives in 2003 and hid them under a construction trailer, the Archives inspector general reported Wednesday.

The report was issued more than a year after Berger pleaded guilty and received a criminal sentence for removal of the documents.

Inspector General Paul Brachfeld reported that when Berger was confronted by Archives officials about the missing documents, he said it was possible he threw them in his office trash.

The report said that when Archives employees first suspected that Berger - who had been President Clinton's national security adviser - was removing classified documents from the Archives in the fall of 2003, they failed to notify any law enforcement agency.

Berger, who pleaded guilty to unlawfully removing and retaining classified documents, was fined $50,000, ordered to perform 100 hours of community service and was barred from access to classified material for three years.

The report said that when Berger was reviewing the classified documents in the Archives building a few blocks from the Capitol, employees saw him bending down and fiddling with something white, which could have been paper, around his ankle.

However, Archives employees did not feel at the time there was enough information to confront someone of Berger's stature, the report said.

Brachfeld reported that on one visit, Berger took a break to go outside without an escort.

"In total, during this visit, he removed four documents ... .

"Mr. Berger said he placed the documents under a trailer in an accessible construction area outside Archives 1 (the main Archives building)."

Berger acknowledged that he later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.

Berger, with the authorization of former President Clinton, was reviewing National Security Council documents on Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, Sudan, and related presidential correspondence. The review was to facilitate Berger's impending testimony before the House and Senate intelligence committees.

He took CLASSIFIED documents and let them get out of his control, a crime in and of itself since he broke the chain of custody

[redskins2redskins]

? excuse me? If he's the fall guy it's only because he sheilded Cheney and Roove. His lawyer used this line of reasoning. Scooter's just the fall guy. If he would have said Cheney told him to break the law, so he did it. To begin with then he wouldn't be in jail for purjury.

As for this being the same crime as Clinton's. I think that's about right. Although Clinton had the additional crime of sexual harrassment.

Clinton makes a pass at three ladies. One with a paid job and two with unpaid jobs working under him. The one with the paid job protests and is fired. One with an unpaid job keeps quiet about it and get's a six figure paid position on permanent junket to Europe. The other with an unpaid job encourages his advances and gets a six figure job in New York which Clinton lined up for her.

Clinton should have been impeached and served jail time too.

Well of course it's because he shielded Cheney and Rove,and that's why I said what I did.:doh:

That is why if Bush did pardon him ...I wouldn't have a problem with it,it's his decision anyway.

I realize he could and should have spilled the beans....I just hate knowing that the others in higher positions are getting by with their involvement....and there is no telling what kind of pressure was put on him to hush hush..who knows. The verdict is fine...it's the sentencing that I'm thinking about more.

I knew I'd get someone going.... and maybe catch a few comments.

[aREDSKIN]

I think I have quite a few clues. If you care to be specific perhaps we could discuss where you think I'm in error.

Facts,

• Berger only had access to copies of classified documents.
  
• Berger wasn't trying to change the record
  
• Berger wasn't trying to cover up what he and Clinton had done
  
• Berger was only trying to prepare his and Clinton's testomony for the 911 hearings.
  
• Berger was national security director for 4 years under Clinton
  
• Before national security director Berger was deputy national security director for 4 additional years.
  
• Berger was provided under the Bush administration with acess to his documents in an almost unusable forum.
  

a. No Notes

b. No copies.

c. Only a few documents at a time.

The only reason Berger stole the documents in the first place is because Bush administration was screwing with him and Clinton and it was the only way he could prepare for his 911 testomony. He was the deputy national security director for 4 years. He was the national security director for 4 years. He certainly had the clearances to see the documents he took.

He also had the authority to keep these documents in his possession while in office under clinton only a few months before he is accused of taking them.

RIGHT!!!!!!

Here you go.....

According to reports from the Inspector General of the National Archives and the staff of the House of Representatives' Government Operations Committee, Mr. Berger, while acting as former President Clinton's designated representative to the commission investigating the attacks of September 11, 2001, illegally took confidential documents from the Archives on more than one occasion. He folded documents in his clothes, snuck them out of the Archives building, and stashed them under a construction trailer nearby until he could return, retrieve them, and later cut them up. After he was caught, he lied to the investigators and tried to shift blame to Archive employees.

Contrary to his initial denials and later excuses, Berger clearly intended from the outset to remove sensitive material from the Archives. He used the pretext of making and receiving private phone calls to get time alone with confidential material, although rules governing access dictated that someone from the Archives staff must be present. He took bathroom breaks every half-hour to provide further opportunity to remove and conceal documents.

Before this information was released, the Justice Department, accepting his explanation of innocent and accidental removal of the documents, allowed Berger to enter a plea to the misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material - no prison time, no loss of his bar license. The series of actions that the Archives and House investigations detail, however, are entirely at odds with protestations of innocence. Nothing about his actions was accidental. Nothing was casual. And nothing was normal.

What could have been important enough for Berger to take the risks he did? What could have been important enough for a lawyer of his distinction to risk disgrace, disbarment, and prison?

To paraphrase the questions asked of Richard Nixon by members of his own Party, what did he take and why did he take it?

**********

The report released by Rep. Tom Davis last week makes plain that right now we cannot answer those questions. We cannot say what information in fact was lost through Mr. Berger's actions.

At President Clinton's request, he reviewed highly confidential material during four visits to the Archives over four months. Only Mr. Berger knows what transpired on his first two visits, when he reviewed collections of confidential memos, e-mails, and handwritten notes, including materials taken from counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke's office - all of which were not catalogued at the individual item level.

On Mr. Berger's third visit Archives employees became suspicious that he might be removing classified material. Rather than directly confront a former Cabinet-level official, Archives officials simply took steps to identify further theft on succeeding visits. That is how Mr. Berger's thefts on his fourth and last visit were documented.

We don't know what Mr. Berger might have removed from the uncatalogued materials reviewed in his earlier visits, but we know his last visit focused on a memorandum called the Millennium Alert After Action Report (MAAAR). Copies of this report were made available to the 9/11 Commission, but the information in those copies undoubtedly is not what interested Berger most. Berger took five copies of the report and later destroyed three of them.

What was on the copies he destroyed? Handwritten notes from Berger, the President, or some other official? Observations that would be embarrassing to them, evidence they missed an important threat or considered or recommended actions - or decisions not to act - they wouldn't want to defend in public? Evidence, perhaps, that would have supported the Bush Administration? We don't know, and no one who does is saying, but the evidence must have been terribly damning for Berger to take the risks he did.

**********snip

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/sandy_berger_what_did_he_take.html

[Predicto]

Thank you for the spin from realclearpolitics.com. Perhaps you can find some even more cogent insight on freerepublic.com, or looneyrightwingagenda.com.

[aREDSKIN]

Thank you for the spin from realclearpolitics.com. Perhaps you can find some even more cogent insight on freerepublic.com, or looneyrightwingagenda.com.

Typical attack the messenger from Mr. Lefty.

Here's an AP, of course it's nothing but a Moonie mouthpiece too

WASHINGTON (AP) - December 20, 2006 - President Clinton's national security adviser removed classified documents from the National Archives, hid them under a construction trailer and later tried to find the trash collector to retrieve them, the agency's internal watchdog said Wednesday.

The report was issued more than a year after Sandy Berger pleaded guilty and received a criminal sentence for removing the documents.

Berger took the documents in the fall of 2003 while working to prepare himself and Clinton administration witnesses for testimony to the Sept. 11 commission. Berger was authorized as the Clinton administration's representative to make sure the commission got the correct classified materials.

Berger's lawyer, Lanny Breuer, said in a statement that the contents of all the documents exist today and were made available to the commission.

But Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., outgoing chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, said he's not convinced that the Archives can account for all the documents taken by Berger. Davis said working papers of National Security Council staff members are not inventoried by the Archives.

"There is absolutely no way to determine if Berger swiped any of these original documents. Consequently, there is no way to ever know if the 9/11 Commission received all required materials," Davis said.

Berger pleaded guilty to unlawfully removing and retaining classified documents. He was fined $50,000, ordered to perform 100 hours of community service and was barred from access to classified material for three years.

Officials told The Associated Press at the time of the thefts that the documents were highly classified and included critical assessments about the Clinton administration's handling of the millennium terror threats as well as identification of America's terror vulnerabilities at airports and seaports.

Inspector General Paul Brachfeld reported that National Archives employees spotted Berger bending down and fiddling with something white around his ankles.

The employees did not feel at the time there was enough information to confront someone of Berger's stature, the report said.

Later, when Berger was confronted by Archives officials about the missing documents, he lied by saying he did not take them, the report said.

Brachfeld's report included an investigator's notes, taken during an interview with Berger. The notes dramatically described Berger's removal of documents during an Oct. 2, 2003, visit to the Archives.

Berger took a break to go outside without an escort while it was dark. He had taken four documents in his pockets.

"He headed toward a construction area. ... Mr. Berger looked up and down the street, up into the windows of the Archives and the DOJ (Department of Justice), and did not see anyone," the interview notes said.

He then slid the documents under a construction trailer, according to the inspector general. Berger acknowledged that he later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.

"He was aware of the risk he was taking," the inspector general's notes said. Berger then returned to the Archives building without fearing the documents would slip out of his pockets or that staff would notice that his pockets were bulging.

The notes said Berger had not been aware that Archives staff had been tracking the documents he was provided because of earlier suspicions from previous visits that he was removing materials. Also, the employees had made copies of some documents.

In October 2003, the report said, an Archives official called Berger to discuss missing documents from his visit two days earlier. The investigator's notes said, "Mr. Berger panicked because he realized he was caught."

The notes said that Berger had "destroyed, cut into small pieces, three of the four documents. These were put in the trash."

After the trash had been picked up, Berger "tried to find the trash collector but had no luck," the notes said.

Significant portions of the inspector general's report were redacted to protect privacy or national security.

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=politics&id=4815830

[Prosperity]

edit:

oh i misread your post my bad

[Predicto]

Typical attack the messenger from Mr. Lefty.

Here's an AP, of course it's nothing but a Moonie mouthpiece too

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=politics&id=4815830

Now that is a relatively unbiased news story. The other thing was a news/spin/attack piece by a right wing web site. I assume you can tell the difference.

We all know that Berger got busted. No one is disputing that.

[Larry]

Typical attack the messenger from Mr. Lefty.

1) It's really ironic that you'd be slinging that charge in this particular context.

After all, the subject of this thread is a GOP professional who's mission was to smear a messenger.

Is there some Republican retreat or some such where people go to have their sense of irony removed?

2) And then you follow it up with "Yeah, but look what somebody else did".

Subtle.

Edit:

3) And I thought I was Mr Lefty.

[aREDSKIN]

1) It's really ironic that you'd be slinging that charge in this particular context.

After all, the subject of this thread is a GOP professional who's mission was to smear a messenger.

Is there some Republican retreat or some such where people go to have their sense of irony removed?

2) And then you follow it up with "Yeah, but look what somebody else did".

Subtle.

Yea the GOP professional was charge with what exactly?? Smearing? Outing? what again? Say what Mr. Fitzpatrick? Yea right, just lying, as I said before he didn't have the balls to charge Mr Libby with what he "publicly" claimed because he already knew he didn't do it. It's public knowledge Richard Armitage did it and Fitz knew it. Just bring up charges on Libbyand get a perjury rap nice one. No less in a city that votes democratic 98% of the time with an ex WA PO reporter on the jury. There's a feather in your cap. But hey lying is lying and lets see if the charges stick. The Berger tangent was in response to another who equate the seriouness of Libby to Berger.

[Chump Bailey]

The Berger tangent was in response to another who equate the seriouness of Libby to Berger.

Berger was mentioned quite a bit actually in many tv and radio news/analyst programs - I feel a little vindicated:D For me, it was not about any ideological agenda or motivation. Mentioning Berger was not a veiled attempt on my part of attacking Billy Clinton or his former Cabinet at all. I was merely thinking aloud (this is an opinion board if I'm not mistaken;) ) when I broached the Berger matter - it was the first thing that came to mind and apparently quite a few others. I thought the Berger case was the more egregious act by far and I was simply wondering why it was that particular case was not receiving the same national attention - that's it. Some folks just sit and wait for any opportunity it seems to respond in a rash, snide manner - why? It only makes them look extremely foolish IMO.

[PiLfan]

What total BS. The man was so set up.

I mean really, does this look like the face of a criminal?

[Larry]

Yea the GOP professional was charge with what exactly?? Smearing? Outing? what again? Say what Mr. Fitzpatrick? Yea right, just lying, as I said before he didn't have the balls to charge Mr Libby with what he "publicly" claimed because he already knew he didn't do it. It's public knowledge Richard Armitage did it and Fitz knew it. Just bring up charges on Libbyand get a perjury rap nice one. No less in a city that votes democratic 98% of the time with an ex WA PO reporter on the jury. There's a feather in your cap. But hey lying is lying and lets see if the charges stick. The Berger tangent was in response to another who equate the seriouness of Libby to Berger.

Um, he wasn't charged with smearing Joe Wilson because "smearing the messenger" isn't illegal.

That's also why he didn't mind to confessing that that was his mission.

[Rocky21]

Hard to compete with the corrupt Reagan administration in terms of number of felony convictions, but it's a start. Georgie always was an underachiever.

[JMS]

RIGHT!!!!!!

According to reports from the Inspector General of the National Archives and the staff of the House of Representatives' Government Operations Committee, Mr. Berger, while acting as former President Clinton's designated representative to the commission investigating the attacks of September 11, 2001, illegally took confidential documents from the Archives on more than one occasion. He folded documents in his clothes, snuck them out of the Archives building, and stashed them under a construction trailer nearby until he could return, retrieve them, and later cut them up. After he was caught, he lied to the investigators and tried to shift blame to Archive employees.

Contrary to his initial denials and later excuses, Berger clearly intended from the outset to remove sensitive material from the Archives. He used the pretext of making and receiving private phone calls to get time alone with confidential material, although rules governing access dictated that someone from the Archives staff must be present. He took bathroom breaks every half-hour to provide further opportunity to remove and conceal documents.

Before this information was released, the Justice Department, accepting his explanation of innocent and accidental removal of the documents, allowed Berger to enter a plea to the misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material - no prison time, no loss of his bar license. The series of actions that the Archives and House investigations detail, however, are entirely at odds with protestations of innocence. Nothing about his actions was accidental. Nothing was casual. And nothing was normal.

What could have been important enough for Berger to take the risks he did? What could have been important enough for a lawyer of his distinction to risk disgrace, disbarment, and prison?

To paraphrase the questions asked of Richard Nixon by members of his own Party, what did he take and why did he take it?

**********

The report released by Rep. Tom Davis last week makes plain that right now we cannot answer those questions. We cannot say what information in fact was lost through Mr. Berger's actions.

At President Clinton's request, he reviewed highly confidential material during four visits to the Archives over four months. Only Mr. Berger knows what transpired on his first two visits, when he reviewed collections of confidential memos, e-mails, and handwritten notes, including materials taken from counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke's office - all of which were not catalogued at the individual item level.

On Mr. Berger's third visit Archives employees became suspicious that he might be removing classified material. Rather than directly confront a former Cabinet-level official, Archives officials simply took steps to identify further theft on succeeding visits. That is how Mr. Berger's thefts on his fourth and last visit were documented.

We don't know what Mr. Berger might have removed from the uncatalogued materials reviewed in his earlier visits, but we know his last visit focused on a memorandum called the Millennium Alert After Action Report (MAAAR). Copies of this report were made available to the 9/11 Commission, but the information in those copies undoubtedly is not what interested Berger most. Berger took five copies of the report and later destroyed three of them.

What was on the copies he destroyed? Handwritten notes from Berger, the President, or some other official? Observations that would be embarrassing to them, evidence they missed an important threat or considered or recommended actions - or decisions not to act - they wouldn't want to defend in public? Evidence, perhaps, that would have supported the Bush Administration? We don't know, and no one who does is saying, but the evidence must have been terribly damning for Berger to take the risks he did.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/sandy_berger_what_did_he_take.html

Do you think it's reasonable that the national archives has important presidencial documents sitting around in a box uncataloged years after the president's left office? Do you think it's reasonable that important presidential documents are uncataloged even while the president is in office, by the National Archive?

Berger took documents which he had every right to look at. This article is misleading because it asserts without specifically stating he took originals. Which is bunk. Then it says he took uncataloged documents. It's the freaking national archive, why would any document of importance be uncataloged? Also they don't give out orginals. Most documents are not even stored in paper form anymore. This article mixes truth with fiction to intentionally mislead.

If Berger wanted to change the record one would think they could have come up with a better plan than taking 3-4 documents from the National archives in his socks and underpants.

• Truth, we don't know what documents that he took.
  
• Truth, we do know what documents he was looking at in each of his trips because he had to check them out. The reason we can't deduce what he took from what he checked out was because he was looking at copies not originals.
  
• False, The unstated allusion that Berger was trying to cover up or change the record.
  
• True, Berger was trying to prepare both himself and Clinton for the 911 hearings.
  
• Nobody in the government has a higher security clearence than the national security advisor. Former National security directors as former CIA, FBI, and state Dept heads retain their clearences after they leave office.
  

This article and other such smear jobs by different republicans just muddy the waters. Berger took doguments clear enough. He did so because he was trying to prepare himself and Clinton for the 911 hearings and other investigations into what Clinton had done with regards to Terrorism and Bin Laudin. The Bush administration restricted his access to his documents to the reading room of the national archives. That reading room was supervised. Berger was not permitted to make notes. make copies of the documents. Or have more than a few documents out at a time. The reason why the Bush administration did this was because it wasn't in their interest to hear an accurate accounting of all the Steps that Clinton took both with regards to the millenium terrorist threats and Osama Bin laudin. The reason it wasn't in their interest was because Bush reversed most of Clinton's steps when he took office and took no new steps of his own because Bush didn't consider terrorism the chief threat to the country when he took office.

Post 911 was a political situation with both parties trying to shift blame to each other. Berger took the documents so he could accurately recount the steps Clinton took to stop terrorism. Without taking the documents he would not have been able to do so. End of story.

This story is about politics, not a national security breach.

Berger will likely serve in any future Democratic administration. Because he was pretty good at what he did. He did what he had to do to give the people a fair accounting of his and his Presidents term in office. Scooter will not. Because Scooters crime was about smearing and putting a political opponents life in jeprody rather than than trying to get the truth out.

[Sarge]

Berger took documents which he had every right to look at.

Berger took the documents so he could accurately recount the steps Clinton took to stop terrorism.

Berger was a cluster**** as National Security Advisor who was a lobbist for the CHICOMS before Klinton brought him in. He'll is extremely lucky to have stayed out of jail

[Midnight Judges]

Yea the GOP professional was charge with what exactly?? Smearing? Outing? what again? Say what Mr. Fitzpatrick? Yea right, just lying, as I said before he didn't have the balls to charge Mr Libby with what he "publicly" claimed because he already knew he didn't do it. It's public knowledge Richard Armitage did it and Fitz knew it. Just bring up charges on Libbyand get a perjury rap nice one. No less in a city that votes democratic 98% of the time with an ex WA PO reporter on the jury. There's a feather in your cap. But hey lying is lying and lets see if the charges stick. The Berger tangent was in response to another who equate the seriouness of Libby to Berger.

The reason why nobody was charged according to the 1982 ousting CIA agents law is because it's virtually impossible to charge anyone based on that law. In other words, it's a POS law. Not only do you have to prove the person was covert, but you have to prove that the person outing them knew they were covert at the time, which is virtually impossible because you can't prove that somebody didn't forget.

Armitage was not the only one who discussed her identity with reporters, obviously Libby did too as well as others. It now appears that Plame was indeed covert within the previous five years although I was expecting some sort of official statement regarding her status, the CIA seems steadfast in never disclosing such information even in the face of a federal grand jury.

This has nothing to do with "balls" and everything to do with enforcing a law that is unenforcable. But nobody disputes that outing a covert CIA agent's name is a crime, and here we are today-Valerie Plame is a household name.

[jrockster21]

I agree, but I also think the main reason this was an exercise in futility was because Scooter refused to roll over and spill the dirt on Cheney. Like someone else said, Scooter took one for the team.

Yeah - this was a very hollow victory.

[JMS]

Berger was a cluster**** as National Security Advisor who was a lobbist for the CHICOMS before Klinton brought him in. He'll is extremely lucky to have stayed out of jail

Sarge.

• China was granted permenent most favored nation status under Bush.
  
• China was granted entry into the WTO under Bush.
  
• China's trade deficite to the US has exploded under Bush.
  
• America's foreign debt to china is currently over a trillion dollars because of Bush deficite spending.
  
• The #1 lobiest for China in this country has been and continues to be the Republican Henry Kissinger who has recieved more than a million a year to represent the Chinese for more than two decades.