Skip to comments.
SANDY BERGER: I LIED, I DELIBERATELY DESTROYED DOCUMENTS ON TERRORISM POLICY
National Review ^
| April 1, 2005
| Jim Geraghty
Posted on 04/02/2005 6:17:05 AM PST by conservativecorner
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-146 next last
To: WmShirerAdmirer
had Berger been a Republican and/or in any of the Bush Cabinets, what do you think the punishment would have been? Don't know, but judging from the punishment Rpublicans have endured for Watergate, ie, over 30 years of constant "Watergate; Watergate; Watergate" reminders, a Republican version of Sandy Burglar seeing the light of day again, would be measured in decades...
41
posted on
04/02/2005 6:56:24 AM PST
by
LRS
To: Wilhelm Tell
Yeppers, there's something REALLY fishy about this plea agreement. It's just TOO pat, TOO generous. In fact, it's off the wall.
The new Justice Dept. head honcho should read the Donald's "The Art of the Deal".
Or maybe the consequences of NOT making a deal was the better option for the Bush administration. If so, WHY?
Maybe we're not supposed to reason why, ours is just to move on or die.
Leni
42
posted on
04/02/2005 6:57:04 AM PST
by
MinuteGal
("The Marines keep coming. We are shooting, but the Marines won't stop !" (Fallujah Terrorists)
To: WmShirerAdmirer
Berger is an opportunistic mafioso.
He doesn't take the fall for anybody.
Clintons got a little too over-confident siding up to him, cuz he'd stab his own mother if she got in the way. It's is nature.
43
posted on
04/02/2005 6:58:42 AM PST
by
mabelkitty
(Friends don't let friends Opus!)
To: conservativecorner
You are right, but his handlers, Zipperless Bill and file loser Hillary should be the two others that are charged and imprisoned for their blatant illegal activities that would fill an Encyclopedia Britannica.
44
posted on
04/02/2005 6:59:38 AM PST
by
hgro
To: spanalot
"Something ain't right."
Who runs two branches? Who appointed the current and previous AGs. If the story ends with Sandy, who is the only Party to blame for letting him go so easily?
This seems like a case of the government doing what is best in order to not alarm 'the people' about how security breaches are no big deal.
45
posted on
04/02/2005 7:01:22 AM PST
by
rollo tomasi
(Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
To: dagoofyfoot
The Bush administration continues to treat these felons with kid gloves....why? The ex-presidents' club...preserve the dignity of the office by shoving the dirt under the carpet.
46
posted on
04/02/2005 7:02:40 AM PST
by
peyton randolph
(Warning! It is illegal to fatwah a camel in all 50 states)
To: MinuteGal
...I'm surprised the Burglar King admitted to ANYTHING....
Me too, but the fact there is an admission means there was a tradeoff and surely there was something obtained better than just saving the expense of a trial.
There was the thought of Web Hubble expressed that he would roll over one more time but I wonder. Maybe Sandy did not roll.
He is now on a death watch.
47
posted on
04/02/2005 7:04:57 AM PST
by
bert
(Peace is only halftime !)
To: mabelkitty
So what do you think was the deal made with him, do you think he gave them lots of dirt on the Clintons (and hopefully Hil). And if so, do you think the Bush WH or especially the DOJ would use it (especially any implications in regards to Senator Clinton) in the near future or before the 2008 election?
To: mabelkitty
We will see if Sandy gets immunity. I predict hell will freeze over before that happens. Of course my hopes are roused with the opportunity to get Bill 'The Oval Office sink master and supreme overlord' Clinton but 90% of me is thinking it ends with Sandy.
49
posted on
04/02/2005 7:06:09 AM PST
by
rollo tomasi
(Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
To: conservativecorner
Has there been any determination on the key issue in this case:
Did Berger manage to destroy THE ORIGINAL AND ALL COPIES of any of the documents?
That was clearly his intention.
To: digger48; Pylot
Hey, it only took 4 posts to hook a Bush-blamer! And one who can't spell, to boot!
51
posted on
04/02/2005 7:09:21 AM PST
by
Allan
To: digger48
Hey, it only took 4 posts to hook a Bush-blamer!
OK, what would your reaction be if it was President John Kerry's administration cutting this kind of sweetheart slap-on-the-wrist deal for Sandy Burglar?
Hello? Can't hear you.
But of course.
To: conservativecorner
He accepts complete responsibility for his actions, and regrets the mistakes he made during his review of documents at the National Archives." You think if "I" did what Berger did, I'll be $10,000 lighter and have my national security clearance wanked for three years?
These FBI files the Clinton's have must be real juicy to keep get him off the hook so easily.
53
posted on
04/02/2005 7:11:09 AM PST
by
Popman
(The American Left: Goose Stepping into the Future)
To: conservativecorner
He should hang for this, this is treason pure and simple. This is making a total mockery of national security.
54
posted on
04/02/2005 7:11:19 AM PST
by
thoughtomator
(Fight terror - strangle a caribou!)
To: digger48
He is responsible to enforce the laws... were you aware of that? Do you have a reasonable explanation for why this should be punished so lightly? And why a national security clearance for Mr. Berger should ever be considered again?
55
posted on
04/02/2005 7:12:54 AM PST
by
thoughtomator
(Fight terror - strangle a caribou!)
To: conservativecorner
56
posted on
04/02/2005 7:14:16 AM PST
by
moose2004
(You Can Run But You Can't Hide!)
To: thegreatbeast
This is just another example of the Bush administration not wanting to stir up the pot for some reason. There are FBI files still in the possession of the Clinton's.
Nice convenient way to keep covering up your crimes when they are still popping up 6 years later
57
posted on
04/02/2005 7:15:57 AM PST
by
Popman
(The American Left: Goose Stepping into the Future)
To: Popman
You think if "I" did what Berger did, I'll be $10,000 lighter and have my national security clearance wanked for three years?L
No, if it was you, your security clearance would be "yanked".
Any former Clintonista?
It's "wanked" indeed.
Popman, that gets my vote for 'Freudian Political Slip of the Day'. LOL
To: WmShirerAdmirer
I don't know.
I'm sure he' sang, and I'm sure he nailed Kerry, Heinz, Torecelli (folks forget he was under the radar but working for his campaign), Cleland (people forget he disappeared without a trace, as well), Kennedy, Gorelick, both Clintons, Albright, Reno, and any number of others.
Albright has recently changed her stand on some positions. Is it connected?
And Clinton was out of the country with Bush Sr. on Tsunamipalooza - was this to keep him from meddling with Berger? Possibly. Hill has been real quiet of late, as well.
Keep your eyes on the loudmouths who suddenly shut up.
Just may take. Bush will not extort to get what he wants - he'll reach across the aisle and compromise, but he'll get what he wants. Watch.
59
posted on
04/02/2005 7:17:21 AM PST
by
mabelkitty
(Friends don't let friends Opus!)
To: conservativecorner
Whats, "I'm Uniter'er not a divider". MEAN.?...
Immunity for democrats.. National Security is a JOKE...
But I'm not laughing..
And the Mexican border is a runway for Mexican Drug Lords..<<- Mex gov't...
60
posted on
04/02/2005 7:18:26 AM PST
by
hosepipe
(This propaganda has been ok'ed by me to included some fully orbed hyperbole....)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-146 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson