Posted on 07/20/2004 9:06:44 AM PDT by Matchett-PI
No reason for Kerry to look better than Clinton; and that is what these papers supposedly have to do with/Clinton Admin et al/Berger etc; their (non)-response to terror and no doubt,their NOT sharing the info with Bush.
We knew Clinton was determined to leave this presidency with as much damage as possible for GW to come into. . .as did even his minions destroy and trash the WH before Bush's arrival.
Clinton's crimes go beyond one's worst expectations; but not beyond one's worst fears.
This omission is more than just protecting/creating spin; it would be treasonous in my book.
And yes, Kerry could/should be damaged for wherever he may fit in this puzzle; particularly if he was so apprised when Berger came to him as an employee to his campaign.
If he did not know. . .and I suspect he did. . .then he would want Bergers head on a platter.
Interesting to see; how Kerry responds to 'Berger's Sox'.
It is my understanding that it was 'note cards' with info on the classified Docs that he put in his clothing (jacket, pants & socks) ....not the actual Documents.
However, one is not allowed to make notes (in other words make hand written copies) of such highly classified documents and take them out of the Archives.
Because Kerry is a filthy democrat and must hire other filthy democrats to work on his campaign. It's that birds of a feather thing.
Finally, after 120 posts.
PSHAW! Next you will be calling for Berger to be prosecuted!
...Imagine! Prosecuting a Clintonista! ...prosecuting a Democrap!
;-) FReegards,
IR
Why; if Berger was observed breeching security; why was he permitted to just exit like nothing had happened? Why have security there; if you can stuff it; or push it into your briefcase and they know it. . .and do not stop you.
I TOTALY disagree....I think it IS the Clintons.....NOT Kerry...who is the REAL object.
Well, just asked another question that has not been raised in the media; at least in the few interviews I have seen in the past couple of hours; and that is why Berger was allowed to leave if he had been observed stealing security documents?
I hope they interview one of the Security 'viewees' so to speak. . .
Berger's lawyer is now making the rounds on the news. . .incredible story teller. . .
. . .more incredible; if ANYone buy this sorry story.
Perhaps also pertinient: why hasn't the FBI yet officially questioned Berger? What exactly have they been investigating for months?
...bury this one in the inactive file... Democraps are immune. Phoo! The Clintooon sold our nuclear secrets to the ChiComs for campaign cash...
Boy! Alot sure came of that, heh?
Very good question......and here's another....Why was Bruce Lindsay, Clinton legal advisor called after Berger left and informed that Berger was observed taking stuff?
Thanks. . . I missed that; amazing. . .so Lindsey was called. . .good grief (saw his name mentioned; but did not catch the context as I was hurrying. . .)
I hope someone asks about this and the 'other' as well; pertinent and sensible. . .obvious questions!
When Bergers lawyer was whining his defense to Wolf Blitzer - Fox was not doing the story at the time; and wanted to see what Wolf contributed; he was, actually, very incredulous; but needed more questions - Berger's lawyer; must have referenced his client as a 'patriot' umpteen times; also whined - that they wanted to keep this private and not 'political'; (sure, they should enjoy such luxury); but was implying how mean and nasty Justice Dept was to have leaked this info. . .at this time especially. . .
Hope he is brave enough to talk over at FNC.
Yes, about the timing; why did it take sooooooo long?
Info on Fox says Berger did this more than once! Twice apparently; and only after second time; did they notify FBI (first time; they called Lindsey).
In addition to millenium terror reportinfo; Berger also retrieved shipping port/ship 'security' issue papers.
Coincidentally, Kerry used such info in a major campaign speech - as to what needed to be done to secure shipping port security - almost immediately following the security papers disappearing into Bergers pants et al. . .
They are all offering ' not serious as there were copies; so what (?) - but where are they and 'who knew'. . .locked away with high security; far from public access. . .sooooo.
So why does that explanation imply absolution for Berger?
Berger needed the papers; the info; and he got them; it might appear that they helped save someone; and as well, may have inspired someone else.
Interesting if Berger was first 'serving' Clinton; and then unbeknownst to Clinton; serving Kerry as well.
Here's the article about lack of security at Logan.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103485/posts
Shreds of what was the Constitution?
So what is that hanging on Ginzberg's lip.
Your great answer:
Shreds of what was the Constitution?
"It is my understanding that it was 'note cards' with info on the classified Docs that he put in his clothing (jacket, pants & socks) ....not the actual Documents."
Of course the Democrats will use this to advantage. "The nasty Republicans were saying that he had file cabinets stuff down his pants. They are lieing! It was some small note cards (do I hear "post-its anyone) that he had."
There's a HUGE difference between documents and note cards - and the Republicans are spreading these evil rumors about Sandy.
And to a degree these statements will sound correct to the average voter. Something to be said about staying out of speculation on initial reports and causing the rumors to run wild.
HOWEVER - weren't some of these files MISSING from the archives, so the 9/11 commission did not have access to them? Maybe Sandy took files AND note cards.
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.