Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 09:12 pm
Sandy Berger Destroys Highly Classified Documents For Political Reasons

How did this event not receive the same degree of news coverage as the Valerie Plamme incident?

How did Berger not receive the same measure of scorn form politicians and journalists as has Libby?

Berger confessed to stealing and destroying highly classified documents. Did Time magazine post a cover with a cloud over the Clinton legacy?

If you can be intellectually honest, imagine the same story featuring Karl Rove. Same reaction?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 791 • Replies: 14
No top replies

 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 04:36 am
1) Because Sandy is a self-serving jerk.
2) Acting to cover his own ass rather than anyone's else.
3) There wasn't any effect on the 9-11 commission's work

and thus:

It was just another idiot getting caught being stupid.

Joe(at least he wasn't drunk)Nation
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 06:37 am
Sandy Berger's idiocy did get wide media coverage. Consider that most A2K posters know exactly whom you're talking about.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 06:41 am
Joe Nation wrote:
1) Because Sandy is a self-serving jerk.
2) Acting to cover his own ass rather than anyone's else.
3) There wasn't any effect on the 9-11 commission's work

and thus:

It was just another idiot getting caught being stupid.

Joe(at least he wasn't drunk)Nation


How do we know that he was only working to cover his own ass? We don't know what was in the doc's he took and destroyed so we don't have a clue as to whether what he did effected the 9-11 commission.

Do you what papers he destroyed? I sure don't and neither does any one else. The only person who knows what was destroyed is the Burgler.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 06:49 am
Baldimo wrote:
Joe Nation wrote:
1) Because Sandy is a self-serving jerk.
2) Acting to cover his own ass rather than anyone's else.
3) There wasn't any effect on the 9-11 commission's work

and thus:

It was just another idiot getting caught being stupid.

Joe(at least he wasn't drunk)Nation


How do we know that he was only working to cover his own ass? We don't know what was in the doc's he took and destroyed so we don't have a clue as to whether what he did effected the 9-11 commission.

Do you what papers he destroyed? I sure don't and neither does any one else. The only person who knows what was destroyed is the Burgler.


we could have him testify to some congress people over say... shrimp shooters and yager bombs at Fridays... no transcripts of course.... but he promises to be totally truthful.... that should put it to bed right? Laughing
0 Replies
 
malek
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 07:03 am
Hits on Fox News website search engine.

Sandy Berger 59.

Valerie Plame 574.

Surprising, considering that Fox is regarded as right of right wing.

Maybe the Plame story was just considered more newsworthy?, or easier to hype?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 07:10 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Joe Nation wrote:
1) Because Sandy is a self-serving jerk.
2) Acting to cover his own ass rather than anyone's else.
3) There wasn't any effect on the 9-11 commission's work

and thus:

It was just another idiot getting caught being stupid.

Joe(at least he wasn't drunk)Nation


How do we know that he was only working to cover his own ass? We don't know what was in the doc's he took and destroyed so we don't have a clue as to whether what he did effected the 9-11 commission.

Do you what papers he destroyed? I sure don't and neither does any one else. The only person who knows what was destroyed is the Burgler.


we could have him testify to some congress people over say... shrimp shooters and yager bombs at Fridays... no transcripts of course.... but he promises to be totally truthful.... that should put it to bed right? Laughing


He already lied and was caught. He now has double jeapordy to protect his ass.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 07:13 am
yes larry I'm aware the Berger affair has concluded, but thanks for reaching out.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 12:48 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
yes larry I'm aware the Berger affair has concluded, but thanks for reaching out.


I... I... I... got nothing.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 01:31 pm
malek wrote:
Hits on Fox News website search engine.

Sandy Berger 59.

Valerie Plame 574.

Surprising, considering that Fox is regarded as right of right wing.

Maybe the Plame story was just considered more newsworthy?, or easier to hype?


The Plame story is current; the Berger story is not. That probably accounts for the current discrepancy in hits, but it didn't receive the same degree of coverage when it was current.

Maybe it was because Republicans controlled the White House and Congress at the time and there was no real partisan need for a Democrat scandal.

Baldimo is correct of course. No one knows what the documents he destroyed would have revealed, but the mere fact that a former National Security Advisor stole and destroyed classified information has to be considered scandalous.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 01:35 pm
Noddy24 wrote:
Sandy Berger's idiocy did get wide media coverage. Consider that most A2K posters know exactly whom you're talking about.


The response to this thread is hardly proof that most A2Kers know of Berger and this scandal, but even if that is the case, I'm not sure what the significance might be. When it comes to awareness of current events, A2Kers are, by no means, representative of the general public.

The Berger affair was covered, but not in the same way as the Plame affair.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 01:42 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Noddy24 wrote:
Sandy Berger's idiocy did get wide media coverage. Consider that most A2K posters know exactly whom you're talking about.


The response to this thread is hardly proof that most A2Kers know of Berger and this scandal, but even if that is the case, I'm not sure what the significance might be. When it comes to awareness of current events, A2Kers are, by no means, representative of the general public.

The Berger affair was covered, but not in the same way as the Plame affair.


Berger was already out of office. Simple as that.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 06:58 pm
And-god only knows why we are going over this now- what Sandy took were COPIES of documents, not originals, and his own notes, neither of which he was authorized to do.

Nothing, despite the heated sighs and cries of Republicans, repeat, nothing is missing from the National Archives.


Joe(Let's move on now.)Nation
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 06:44 am
Joe Nation wrote:
And-god only knows why we are going over this now- what Sandy took were COPIES of documents, not originals, and his own notes, neither of which he was authorized to do.

Nothing, despite the heated sighs and cries of Republicans, repeat, nothing is missing from the National Archives.


Joe(Let's move on now.)Nation


Do you have any supporting evidence that nothing is missing or only Bergers word on what was done?
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 07:17 am
Yup. It's the National Archives, Baldimo, not your local library. When you go there to review documents you don't get the originals to study, you get copies. You would know this even if all you did was read through the press reports about the incident. So even if he carried out a bale of paper, no original documents would be "missing' from the Archive.

What is missing, and there is testimony to that effect, are some of the copies of a report, but as Bryon York reported in the New Republic,
Quote:
It is not clear how many copies of the report exist. Nor is it clear why Berger was so focused on the document. If he simply wanted a copy, it seems that taking just one would have been sufficient. But it also seems that Berger should have known that he could not round up all the known copies of the document, since there were apparently other copies in other secure places. Whatever the case, the report was ultimately given to the September 11 Commission.
LINK

Sleep well. This was a case of a guy who wanted to look good during his testimony before Congress and wanted to take some stuff home to study up some more (idiot).

Joe(pssst. You can practically read the whole thing in Clarke's book.)Nation
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » This Was Not A Scandal?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/16/2019 at 01:27:58