[o_zarkman44]

And why hasn't Bergler been indicted??? Why should a Rat get preferential treatment???

It is BS about secrets being protected. The NY Times seems to have the ability to access any secret that makes Bush look bad. So why is it that other so called secrets involving the DemoRat operatives get a free pass???

Something is pretty stinky here.

[badbass]

Something is pretty stinky here.

It's called the U.S. Government. Especially the Clinton appointed part of it (though I can't but help notice that Bush IS the President of the United States now, and could probably get this taken care of, if he wanted to).

[windchime]

Cashill's articles have some interesting theories.

[GoldCountryRedneck]

And why hasn't Bergler been indicted???

What would the new charges be?

As I understand it, he's already been tried, convicted, and sentenced. I'm not an atty, but I don't think he can be re-charged or re-sentenced - unless it was something new.

This whole thing really stinks and he'll be back in for Klintoon in '08.

[samtheman]

It is BS about secrets being protected. The NY Times seems to have the ability to access any secret that makes Bush look bad. So why is it that other so called secrets involving the DemoRat operatives get a free pass???

And why is Bush going along with this? Somewhat like the Palestinians, Bush never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

[arthurus]

And why hasn't Bergler been indicted??? Why should a Rat get preferential treatment???

Republicans are always much more concerned to protect Democrats afflicted by scandals than they are worried about protecting Republicans.

[piasa]

And why hasn't Bergler been indicted???

He was indicted and more. He plea bargained and he was convicted.

It's not "BS" about protecting secrets- that's the same reason Agee was never nailed as much as he deserved, the SOB pulled the old trick of calling every covert agent and anyone remotely related to covert ops as witnesses. Rather than expose agents and methods it was regrettable better to nail him with only the base evidence and not try for the big stuff that would open the proverbial can of worms, maybe get people killed, American and allied assets.

These weenies, evil unethical lawyers and really dumb emotional juries - the latter having "reasonable doubts" no matter how much evidence of guilt is presented - are the reason "secret evidence" rules were sought. Prosecutors know the odds of getting an inteligent jury are about nil so they won't take the chance and prosecute more difficult charges with greater penalties. But if we just had smart juries with a capacity for logic many prosecutors wouldn't have to open doors better left shut - they'd be able to work with the information available.

That said, there is no doubt the DOJ is corrupted- there are elements who become tenured over the years who will protect mafia-connected people ... and certainly the Clinton cronies are mafia connected as we know from Hillary and Harold Ickes. In the Berger case it is more likely his connections saved him, otherwise prosecutors would have made absolutely certain he was ineligible for any kind ofsecurity clearance. That they didn't extract this from him is proof the prosecutors were sympathetic to him or at minimum paid off.

[sam_paine]

Bush....could probably get this taken care of, if he wanted to).

I have so often wondered why Bush doesn't drill down on this stuff. After trying to wrap my mind around that story, I can only imagine Bush being briefed on this and saying, "that kitchen-fire is under control for the moment, meanwhile let's concentrate on the nuclear forest fire in the middle east where service men are dying every day--and counting on us to focus."

[BILL_C]

And why hasn't Bergler been indicted??? Why should a Rat get preferential treatment???

Bush can't indict anybody.

Although it's pretty obvious, no one, and I mean no one will believe it, not even Jack Cashill.

Let's see, we have bombings, we have an airplane shot down with what hundreds of people say was a missile, and we call it a conspiracy theory.

We have the 9/11 Commission with one of Clinton's people who had to be on the Commission (Jamie Gorelick).

We had Sandy Berger stuffing TOP SECRET documents in to his underwear and stealing them as he was preparing for the 9/11 hearings.

So you ask WHAT WERE THEY TRYING TO HIDE?

Isn't it OBVIOUS that the bombing, the airplane shootdown with what HUNDREDS of witnesses say was a missile were terrorist attacks sponsored by a foreign government? The government was Iraq. Jayna Davis spelled it out clearly in her book, THE THIRD TERRORIST. John Lehman during the 9/11 hearings holds up her book and tries to make sense of it all, but he fails miserably, because the unthinkable happened.

Clinton simply made the decision that YOU, the American public, was not going to be told that this was terrorism. Instead, it's a center fuel tank explosion. Instead, it's a right wing nut case named McVeigh, even though the truck bomb was too small to have destroyed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. And we have to ignore the dozens of witnesses who swore they saw McVeigh and Nichols in the company of EIGHT IRAQI defectors from GULF WAR I. What did the government do with these Iraqis who cheered when the Federal Building was blown up? Nothing, not one thing.

Now you can't believe it's true that President Bill Clinton ORDERED Federal Agencies to ignore and surpress all ties to Middle Eastern terrorism in those couple of incidents, but he clearly did just that. You try to figure WHY the Military raised hell about ABLE DANGER being publicized. You can't figure out for sure WHY we invaded Iraq. You can't because you don't believe that the ties of terrorism lead back to Iraqi attacks against the United States.

Crazy Theory? Tell me something else that explains hundreds of people taking out a full page ad in 2000 that accuses the FBI, the NTSB, the CIA of lying. They say they don't know why, but they know the government is lying.

WHY?

Because Clinton did NOT want to fight Iraq in the mid 1990's. Peace, prosperity, re-election. There are still people writing letters to the editor saying they miss Clinton. The problem is that Clinton did NOT take care of business, he let and encouraged the problem to grow into 9/11.

And Bush can't let you know either, the truth is unbelievable but the consequences might be more severe than anybody can predict. So we play these games and we listen to our press wonder, trying to explain what in actuality is very simple: Clinton screwed us royally a decade ago.

[UpAllNight]

--And why hasn't Bergler been indicted??? Why should a Rat get preferential treatment??? --

From an older article:

A judge on Thursday ordered Sandy Berger, President Clinton’s national security adviser, to pay a $50,000 fine for illegally taking classified documents from the National Archives.

The punishment handed down by U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson exceeded the $10,000 fine recommended by government lawyers. Under the deal, Berger avoids prison time but he must surrender access to classified government materials for three years.