Posted on 07/20/2004 1:11:47 PM PDT by gopwinsin04
SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS: 'Reportedly these documents are related to homeland security and then suddenly we see the Kerry campaign came forward with what may have been illegal documents. This is sensitive stuff and was a significant breach of security...Kerry knows better than to use these documents,' Chambliss says in a press conference.
SEN. GORDON SMITH: 'There is a curious connection between the removal of these documents and the Kerry press conference on port security..It's disappointing what people might do as they try and take the President down.
Also made numerous trips to the John...(no pun intended)
I guess just checking in with the toon about what docs to be flushed.
You wrote: "If that web posting by Kerry really does contain anything "secret" then they should say so, and we can all remove the related files. It is not marked "Top Secret", "Confidential" or "Classified"."
"REALLY DOES contain anything secret"??? I thought that the premise of this thread was that Kerry demonstrated that he USED classified information on his website? Do I detect backpeddling? Isn't this thread titled "SENATE REPUBLICANS ACCUSE JOHN KERRY OF USING CLASSIFIED INFO STOLEN BUY SANDY BERGER."
Even though Kerry has not identified his posted materials as classified, people on this thread have identified them as classified. Would you really be willing to use classified materials on your website just because they aren't labelled as classified? Isn't that what you say John Kerry is doing? Don't you read the red directions when you post that say "Loose lips sink ships"?
In fact, of course, as I keep pointing out, Chamblis did not accuse Kerry of using classified materials. He asked a question that implied this might be the case. He said, "Senator Kerry knows better than to utilize those documents in any way, and we think it needs to be called into question as to WHETHER OR NOT they have." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39550
Now I think if Berger is doing policy papers for Kerry they are going to resemble the policy papers he wrote or ordered Clarke to write when they were working for Clinton. And you are going to accuse him of plagiarism?
I am surprised it doesn't occur to anyone to criticize the Clinton policy.
George Bush isn't talking. He is staying quiet. You you guys admire Bush, maybe you should toe the party line and be quiet.
I agree totally that what he appears to have done looks bad. My first posts explained the ARCHIVE proceedures and said that taking documents can't be "inadvertent." He stole them. Why is another issue.
Berger's behavior is a separate issue from whether or not Kerry knowingly used secret documents.
Why are you so upset that Kerry and Berger got caught?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1176256/posts
This story has LEGS, by the way here is the link to the other site that explains.
Tommydale writes: "I don't think it's a good idea to remove our posts just because one person thinks they may be damaging. Let the truth surface. No one ever got hurt by the truth, except for the liars."
"Nobody ever got hurt by the truth except liars"???? This is silly.
People who TELL OUR ENEMIES THE TRUTH about our classified thinking may hurt innocent people. That's what "Loose lips sink ships" means. There is noting about "unless it's not marked classified."
Free Republic is posting information removed from the Kerry site that Freepers allege is compiled from STOLEN CLASSIFIED MATERIAL. I would not post material on the Internet that I believed was classified and might help Al Qaeda just because it wasn't MARKED classified. IF it is classified, that's enough for me.
You guys should watch Bush on this. He knows how to be quiet. He's not going to give Al Qaeda any pointers just to emabarrass Kerry.
Admit it, you all hate Kerry more than you hate Al Qaeda.
Well, I like Bush the best. But I am not prepared to help Al Qaeda to hurt Kerry.
Can you verify with total certainty that any portion of the Kerry speech that was published contained anything of a secret nature? No. The mere fact that Kerry (who claimed just last week that he didn't have time to be briefed) is speaking so fluently on national security policy proves that he has received some help, and we all know who that was -- Berger. Did Berger use the classified documents? That doesn't necessarily mean that the classified information appeared on Kerry's website, only proof that Berger referred to it when briefing Kerry.
Your argument is invalid.
Let there be no doubt that America's enemies, terrorists included but not exclusive, are closely monitoring what our Democrat pols and leftmedia pundits are saying and doing. There's no friend in war quite like a friend on the inside.
You ask me "Why are you so upset that Kerry and Berger got caught?"
I am glad Berger was caught if he was stealing documents. I have used the archives and know that the whole place is stuctured so that "accidents" can't happen. I just think exploiting the scandal for partisan purposes may damage our national security and hurt Bush's chances for re-election.
If classified information WAS put on Kerry's site, I don't like Al Qaeda to know the information was classified because it may help them.
I also think that this scandal may end up hurting Bush at the ballot box with independents because he may look like he is using the DOJ to hurt his opponent. That is the propaganda effect of McAuliff's FOI request--even if the request isn't honored. Indeed, because the story is coming out right before the Democratic Convention, the DOJ will look partisan if they charge Berger with mishandling the documents.
Bush can't defend himself by confirming the information on Kerry's site was compiled from classified documents. He would look reckless. Chambliss should not have implied that Kerry might be USING classified information. The Democrats will just demand he put his money where his mouth is; and if the website contained classified information, he can't confirm this.
I also believe in fairness.
If Kerry WAS using classified information on his site, this does not necessarily mean that he knew this was classified. Perhaps Berger took the materials home and, in addition to preparing his 9-11 testimony, consulted the documents in composing policy papers for the Kerry campaign. After all, he had ordered these documents written in the first place. That's why he was asked to use the archives and give the 9-11 Commission his testimony.
Even if Kerry's posted policies were not based on classified documentation, Kerry may have taken his link down because he heard about Berger's issues and was worried that the material might contain classified information. Or perhaps the DOJ told him the material was based on classified documents. Certainly the responsible thing to do was to quietly take them down even if he had no guilty knowledge.
I think it is difficult to say that just because Kerry's policies resemble a particular secret document, the document was the source. Berger is Kerry's advisor AND he was also the person who was in charge of creating these classified documents in the first place. OF COURSE the views will be similar. It is the same source--Berger.
I actually think it is more likely that Berger may have been checking the files for Clinton. It is bad enough to steal the documents so he can work at home. But a cumpulsive workaholic would be paranoid about returning what he had "borrowed." If stolen documents have disappeared (and Berger himself confirms that this is the case) that seems to me more than sloppy.
I think it is a huge leap to assume Kerry party to this.
Knowing these people, I don't think it's a leap at all.
Senator Kerry? IS THAT YOU?! I'm flattered that you took notice, sir.
You ask, "Can you verify with total certainty that any portion of the Kerry speech that was published contained anything of a secret nature?"
Then YOU actually answer MY question--"no."
Since you don't know me, I presume you are really answering for yourself: YOU can't verify that Kerry's speech contained secrets.
Gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case!
Tommydale can't verify that Kerry's site had classified information. And neither can posters on this link who are averring that BERGER PASSED KERRY STOLEN GOVERNMENT SECRETS.
Look at the title of the link: SENATE REPUBLICANS ACCUSE JOHN KERRY OF USING CLASSIFIED INFO STOLEN BY SANDY BERGER
Actually Chambliss didn't say this. Chambliss said, "Senator Kerry knows better than to utilize those documents in any way, and we think it needs to be called into question as to WHETHER OR NOT they have." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39550
If I could verify Kerry used GOVERNMENT secrets in speeches or on his website, I wouldn't post it on the Internet, because it would be alerting our enemies to the importance of this information. I would handle this quietly.
You compliment Kerry by claiming he "is speaking fluently on foreign affairs" and you credit this to Berger.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, BUT I myself prefer Bush and the hot marine heading up the Directorate of Operations. That said, Kerry is a skilled politician, and if he is using Berger, it isn't a crime. It is a smart move to use a former National Security Advisor. Whom should he use? The Dixie Chicks? Whoopie Goldberg? Michael Moore? Filipp Bobkov?
You ask, "Did Berger use the classified documents" to brief Kerry. Gee, I thought you all knew he did. The title of this link claims that John Kerry himself had stolen documents. You mean you are accusing Berger of passing secret documents to Kerry and you aren't SURE?
Berger supervised Clarke in the creation of the main document in question, and he was tasked with re-reading them for the 9-11 commission.
It is not a crime if Berger has knows what he knows. Is he supposed to give himself a lobotomy before advising Kerry? If he actually gave stolen documents to Kerry or his writers--[what the title of this website thread claims] that I would have a problem with. If he gave advice based on his experiences, that is why people use consultants.
It is posters who claim that Kerry (not just Berger) used stolen secrets. After all, this thread is called "SENATE REPUBLICANS ACCUSE JOHN KERRY OF USING CLASSIFIED INFO STOLEN BY SANDY BERGER."
Odd Freepers, who claim to be security-conscious, are so unconcerned with security that they post what they claim might be stolen govenment secrets. Wasn't it the Republican Senator Chambliss who expressed concerns that Kerry MIGHT have used stolen documents? Wasn't it Kerry who quickly deleated questionable information on his site? I mean, there's a war on.
In my book, if information might help your enemy (Al Qaeda) you don't publicize it just to hurt your opponent (Kerry).
Well, gotta go. Filipp Bobkov and I have tea every Thursday at the Ritz in Pentagon City.
Give our regards to the kind folks over at DU and Al Qaeda.
Filipp Bobkov, I presume.
Hillary!
Give it up! It's over!
JFK
You've got that right.
It isn't a story that the news media will make or break, imo. It's a story that the prosecutors will make or break.
I don't care how much coverage they don't give as long as Berger (and any other culprits) enters into an understanding of how dark the inside of a prison cell is. For a long time.
Kerry, a "sitting" Senator, being fried by his br'er Senators ... they sound pretty hot and I think part of it is because he IS one of their own, (rightly) seen to be betraying their level of privileged access to information, and because if he loses, he goes back into the Senate to do ... what? More harm. Bring more shame on the "august" body. The pubbies know if they let any Senatorial breach of national security be known to slide by, the whole foundation of their part of the government just caved in.
I don't think they're going to like their bro' much any more.
Please, remind me who spoke the quote in your tag line.
This thread is helping Kerry? IN WHAT UNIVERSE? Grab several clues and instead of the bloviation,read more and stop pounding your chest and bellowing pompous codswallop!
You may be a government worker ( though your posts,I believe,should be taken with far more than a shaker full of salt),but that doesn't mean that you are the "expert" on what this thread or even ALL of FR will have on Kerry's run for president.
And McAwful's FOIA is NOT making President Bush look bad to anyone at all.You are a troll,or exceptionally brainwashed,or perhaps some low level Dem operative.We've seen your kind here before.And they didn't have any luck here either.
Didn't you see that this thread actually names TWO SENATE REPUBLICANS?
First you made claims about some UNNAMED GOP on T.V.,then when caught in that one,you flipped over to Chambliss and have been banging away on that now totally moot point.I didn't write the title of the article/thread,but you're blaming me for it now? No? Something else?
I hope your translations are better than your posts;but,I doubt they are.Just another example of how my tax money is being wasted by incompetents.
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.