Inspector General:Berger Stole Documents

What has been largely missing from the scanty press accounts of this comic attampt to alter and steal key governmwent documents, has been the fact that what Berger was doing was an attempt to thwart the investigation into the causes of the 9/11 attack, and how we (amazingly) failed to be ready for it or to intercept it ion the wake of 19 years of escalating al Quaeda attacks, their extensive rhetoric on their intent to do more and their earlier attempt to take down the world trade center.

This was an attempt by a key direct assistant of a former president to alter the historical record on an important question of national security. It deserved far more attention than it got.

0 Replies

Agreed, more like on the scale of Watergate and much worse. Where is the congressional investigation into who knew, what did they know, and when did he know it, and how high into the administration did this reach? Where are the curious reporters, the numerous Time and Newsweek cover photos, and live coverage of hearings on TV day in and day out? I doubt seriously this was Berger's idea and his alone, but even if it was, it is a serious crime, worse in my opinion than a cheap political trick of bugging some political office. Here we have serious matters of national security, lives lost, and future policies in this regard hanging in the balance because accurate information is being altered or shredded.

0 Replies

You all are whipping yourselves into a frenzy over this. "Worse than Watergate." Well, why not? There hasn't been much for your side to be cheerful about lately....

Enjoy!

0 Replies

No one is cheering. This spectacle of venality, stupidity, and deceit on the part of a former director of the National Security Council, done for partisan political purposes, even though it resulted in a distortion of the record being investigated after the 9/11 attack, offers nothing for anyone to either enjoy or laugh about.

0 Replies

Dartagnan wrote:

You all are whipping yourselves into a frenzy over this. "Worse than Watergate." Well, why not? There hasn't been much for your side to be cheerful about lately....

Enjoy!

Your atttitude, if typical of your political faction, and it seems that it is based on a sampling here on this forum, is one big reason you guys earn no respect among people that truly care about the country first before their stupid party, regardless which party. If you did, it wouldn't matter whos ox is being gored.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Dartagnan wrote:
You all are whipping yourselves into a frenzy over this. "Worse than Watergate." Well, why not? There hasn't been much for your side to be cheerful about lately....

Enjoy!

Quote:
Your atttitude, if typical of your political faction, and it seems that it is based on a sampling here on this forum, is one big reason you guys earn no respect among people that truly care about the country first before their stupid party
, regardless which party. If you did, it wouldn't matter whos ox is being gored.

Indeed Okie, you set an excellent example for all of us to follow.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Where is the congressional investigation into who knew, what did they know, and when did he know it, and how high into the administration did this reach?

This incident happened some time ago, and both of houses of Congress were Republican in that time. They could have launched the investigation if they wanted to. Apparently they didn't think there was enough there to bother.

Oh, by the way, in November of 2001 Bush put forth an order that shielded public documents from view, if the former president and current president agree to it. A former president like his father, for instance. Where was the outcry on that one, Okie?

0 Replies

keltic, I will agree with you on one point, and that is the Republicans are wishy washy. One prime example was when Hastert complained about separation of powers or some such thing when William Jefferson's office was accessed, which is baloney. I suppose he could murder someone and hide the body in his office and the law could not access his office? Some of these congressmen become very arrogant, as if they should be treated more special than the rest of us, both parties.

I am one of millions that see the inequity of the application of justice. We see people strain at a gnat and swallow a camel without the least hint of suspicion. Nixon needed to go, I agree, but in no way was that case a monument or benchmark of corruption. The biggest problem we have is a press that does not seem to show a balanced understanding of what is serious and what isn't. The press is really an integral part of the process, and as long as the vast majority are liberal and vote Democratic, there will be a huge disparity in the application of following up on and rooting out corruption. And if the press is not on their side, the Republicans just do not have the inertia or the will to exercise what should be done. In the final analysis, maybe it boils down to the people themselves, the culture, which I do not think exhibits the overall character that it once did.

I am not familiar with the president shielding documents. I doubt if this is anything new or out of the ordinary.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

keltic, I will agree with you on one point, and that is the Republicans are wishy washy. One prime example was when Hastert complained about separation of powers or some such thing when William Jefferson's office was accessed, which is baloney.

So that is your answer as to why the Republicans didn't investigate the Berger incident? Your only problem with the Republicans, party of DeLay and Abramoff, is that they don't go after Democrats hard enough?

okie wrote:

The press is really an integral part of the process, and as long as the vast majority are liberal and vote Democratic, there will be a huge disparity in the application of following up on and rooting out corruption.

What a laugh. The Republicans have been harping on this since Spiro Agnew made speech after speech claiming the press was against the Republicans. He did this right up to the time he pleaded "No contest" to taking construction kickbacks when he was governor of Maryland.

Okie, folks like you are like a vinyl record that got caught in a groove 30 years ago and just keeps going around and around playing the same thing: press against Republicans (click) press against Republicans (click) press against Republicans (click).....

Get a new schtick, will you? This one got worn out ages ago.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I am not familiar with the president shielding documents. I doubt if this is anything new or out of the ordinary.

That is because far less attention was paid to it than should have been. Before Bush's executive order number 13233, presidential communications and records were held by the national archivist for 12 years after the president left office, then released to the public. Bush's order said that if the former president in question does not want these communications and records released,and the current president agrees, they won't get released.

Gee-one of the first things the son of a former president does upon taking office is to make sure the old man's documents and communications don't get released to the public without his permission. In fact, Bush applied this to the Vice President's communications as well, and then made sure it got applied after the fact to the Reagan Presidency. Who was vice president under Reagan? Bush's father.

Here are a couple of pieces on it. They are opinion columns, because I couldn't bring up a straight news story on it. Believe it or not, I went to CNN and tried their archive for "executive order 13233" and got NOTHING about this-so much for the idea the media is out to get the Republicans.
John Dean
NY Times editorial

How about some investigations about that, Okie? After all, you never even heard about this-and you should have.

0 Replies

You don't see the bias as blatant because the press is closer to your point of view, keltic, than mine is to yours. The press does not have the same political makeup as the voting public, so that is why the huge block of conservative voters see a discrepancy, which is real and documented

I think the Republican Party has gone soft in regard to sticking up for conservative principles and in regard to investigating Democratic scandals. The task is difficult to impossible without the press harping on it day in and day out, and the truth is the press is on the Democrats side.

One of the few advantages we have is Talk Radio, but only thoughtful Americans that are truly interested in the details of issues listen to this media, which turns out to be mostly Republicans and Conservatives, which should tell you something. But the vast majority of people, including most Democratic voters, are not reached by this media.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

One of the few advantages we have is Talk Radio, but only thoughtful Americans that are truly interested in the details of issues listen to this media, which turns out to be mostly Republicans and Conservatives, which should tell you something. But the vast majority of people, including most Democratic voters, are not reached by this media.

Advantage over whom?

Besides, since "talk radio is dominated by right-leaning political commentators" [quoted from wikipedia.org] in the USA, I can imagine that others than Conservatives/Republicans barely have a pleasure to switch to such stations often.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:

One of the few advantages we have is Talk Radio, but only thoughtful Americans that are truly interested in the details of issues listen to this media, which turns out to be mostly Republicans and Conservatives, which should tell you something. But the vast majority of people, including most Democratic voters, are not reached by this media.

Advantage over whom?

Over leftists, of course.

Quote:

Besides, since "talk radio is dominated by right-leaning political commentators" [quoted from wikipedia.org] in the USA, I can imagine that others than Conservatives/Republicans barely have a pleasure to switch to such stations often.

Others than Conservatives/Republicans have the right to listen to whatever pleasures them most, Walter. Including Air America ... if it's still on the air.

0 Replies

More general statements from Okie to avoid the question.

Okie, you admitted yourself that you had never heard about Bush's November 1, 2001 exectutive order which basically shields his father's communications and records from public view. If this is not about secrecy and the public's right to know being violated, what is? Yet your only answer to it is general statements about how the press is biased against the Republican party.

You don't deal with the issue because you can't deal with it. You are only on here to make general statements in support of the Republicans.

As I said, Republicans since Spiro Agnew have been at it like a broken record: (click) the press is against the Republicans...(click) the press is against the Republicans...(click) the press is against the Republicans...(click) the press is against the Republicans....

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Over leftists, of course.

Thanks. That wasn't so clear in okie's response since he speaks of Americans later.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Over leftists, of course.

Thanks. That wasn't so clear in okie's response since he speaks of Americans later.

Okay, strike the "of course" from my response, then.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:

One of the few advantages we have is Talk Radio, but only thoughtful Americans that are truly interested in the details of issues listen to this media, which turns out to be mostly Republicans and Conservatives, which should tell you something. But the vast majority of people, including most Democratic voters, are not reached by this media.

Advantage over whom?

Besides, since "talk radio is dominated by right-leaning political commentators" [quoted from wikipedia.org] in the USA, I can imagine that others than Conservatives/Republicans barely have a pleasure to switch to such stations often.

Walter, if you are implying leftists would listen to Talk Radio if it was available, I am curious if you have heard of the concept "Supply and Demand?" If there was a demand for it, you would see left leaning talk radio popping up everywhere. It isn't because there is not sufficient demand for it. This is an age old simple basic fact of economics 101, Walter. Left leaning voters would rather listen to cool music or something else that does not burst their bubble of what the professor told them or the main stream media indoctrinates them with every day.

It will not surprise me if a Democrat gains the presidency, and armed with a Democratic congress if that happens as well, we will start being bombarded with the "unfairness" of Talk Radio and the need of the phony concept of a "fairness doctrine."

0 Replies

Okie, you've got it all figured out, it seems: Leftists ignore talk radio, the only source of good info. But when the Democrats win in 2008, they will enact rules to limit talk radio.

Do you really believe this stuff or just make it up as you go along?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Walter, if you are implying leftists would listen to Talk Radio if it was available ...

I implyed anything but asked a question and quoted from wikipedia.

0 Replies

Maybe you need to listen to Talk Radio, and you will become informed. The fairness doctrine discussion is always lurking out there and is a real issue to be dealt with if enough leftists gain office. Leftists do not like free speech if the speech does not agree with them, thats for sure.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200612/COM20061206d.html

0 Replies

Inspector General:Berger Stole Documents

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know