Posted on 07/11/2004 6:34:52 AM PDT by Hillary's Lovely Legs
To say the least! And guess where the NYT's put this story in today's edition? Page 17, below the fold, a little box at the bottom right on the page.
Since Effin's on vacation I don't suppose he'll have much to say about this "adviser" of his.
Manhattan Federal Judge Robert Sweet's decision - made public yesterday - prohibits blanket searches of bulky bags and backpacks in the absence of a "specific threat."
"In this day and age of terrorism, it's an extremely dangerous step in a very dangerous time in New York City," said an outraged Michael Palladino, president of the Detectives Endowment Association.
"It's giving an open door to terrorists, and further handcuffing police at a time that they should be given a little bit more latitude," Palladino said. He said he plans to urge Mayor Bloomberg to appeal the ruling. full story
___________
Appointed to the federal bench by Jimmy Carter, by the way.
Berger will get a pass.
If we try to do otherwise we will be labeled as Bitter and Vindictive.
Dems are apparently taking this seriously. CNN just rolled out LANNY DAVIS, scandal-controller extrordinaire.
Davis made every effort to make this story about the leak rather than Berger. Kudos to CNN, they didn't take the bait.
I'm still struck by the fact that this apparently involves multiple copies of a 15-PAGE memo. No way one could accidently take, let alone destroy, several copies of a 15-pager stamped "SECRET".
How long before we see the headline:
One thing that's most intriguing for me is how they refer to Berger stuffing docs into his pants, not he put them in his pockets. Inadvertently putting something into your pocket I can understand but stuffing papers into ones pants? Dang those administrative snafus!
We need some signs for the convention, Sandy "Stickyfingers" Berger advises Kerry or Sandy Berger, drop your pants and show us the documents! Keep this story alive!
Something else the media glided over this weekend:
Kerry said he would not hesitate to use preemptive force to protect the country from an imminent threat of terrorist attack. Link
Some people I know will have a quandary now, one of the main reason these folks are so mad at GWB is because "we don't attack other countries without provocation", "Iraq didn't attack us" and so forth. I won't point out to them that the flip flopper would just never be able to find "actionable intelligence."
Gergen was on NBC this morning doing the same thing for Berger that Davis was trying on CNN. Geez, I really dislike Gergen and have for quite a while.
... before he would hesitate to use preemptive force, that is.
Debra Suanders whacks Kerry and leaves a mark:
"I think every premonition I had about the downside of this war was proved prescient," Kerry also told the Chronicle, "and it comes out of the experience that I personally had when we lost the consent and legitimacy of our nation in the war that I fought in."
And yet Kerry voted for this war. How can a man so savvy and sophisticated -- so prescient, if he does say so himself -- have been misled by that simpleton Bush?
"Proved prescient," yet "misled."
Now that is nuance. Ouch!
He fought in a war? Really? I thought he was just the accidental tourist in Vietnam, papercutting his way across the Mekong Delta.
No wonder Ashcroft was in a foul mood during his testimony before the 911 commission, as he sat there on May 18 he knew what Berger had been up to.
Off to do some work, back later...
...shades of Fawn Hall stuffing.
Rush is going to have sooooo much fun with this!
Sticky Fingers
Pantload
Trousergate
LOL!
I should have lived two hundred years ago...
huh?
...back when there was a modicum of honor and decency in government...
President Bush (news - web sites) is accompanied by his twin daughters, Barbara, left, and Jenna, second from left, as they prepare to board Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, Tuesday, July 20, 2004, on their way to visits in Iowa and Missouri. Col Jim Brackett, 89th-Mission Support Group commander, is at right. (AP Photo/Jacqueline Malonson ).
I've been mulling something over. Maybe y'all could help me flesh it out.
Over the last several decades we have successfully made the word "liberal" a dirty word. So much so, it's almost become a cliche...lost its potency. I don't think attacking Kerry as a liberal is nearly as effective as it was against Dukakis.
I would like to see Bush (or the RNC) develop a new tack. It goes something like this:
Liberals always come up with additional social ills where we need to spend more $$$. No matter how much the gov't does, it's never enough.
I think our side should reduce that down to "an individual". We all hope we do a lot of good in our lives. We try to help others. But do we do EVERYTHING? CAN we help EVERY person/cause? No. Like the gov't, we have to prioritize.
Summary something like this: Through their governemtn, Americans do unmeasurable good throughout the world...from aids relief to peacekeeping to food distribution. But all the liberals ever talk about is what we DON'T do.
Does this make any sense?
I can't think of one social ill that a government program has not exacerbated instead of helping...and we pay for all of it.
Pop star Michael Jackson, facing a trial on child molestation charges, is about to become a father to four more children — quadruplets — by way of a surrogate mother, Us Weekly magazine reported Tuesday. rest of story
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.