If someone was watching him stuff papers into his pants, why didn't they stop him?
If someone was watching him stuff papers into his pants, why didn't they stop him?
You have obviously never hung around my Uncle RoscoeOriginally Posted by RedsBaron
"I came here to kick ass and chew bubble gum... and I'm all out of bubble gum."
- - Rowdy Roddy Piper
"It takes a big man to admit when he is wrong. I am not a big man"
- - Fletch
The intelligence reports gathered and submitted by our various agencies was not "filtered" through Bush, who then forwarded it to Congress and the various committees. That is just not how the system works. And many members of Congress (from both sides), and those on the Senate Intelligence Committee (Sen Biden for one), have stated this. Intel reports are filed respectfully to all appropriate committees for their review/investigation.
I am not denying that some of the statements that members of the Bush administration said publically, in respect to WMD, have proven not true, no more then what others within Congress also publically stated at the time. Including guys like Kerry, Edwards, Gore, and many leading Democrats.
And I'm not going to post on here again what many of these people stated prior to going into Iraq concerning the threat they believed Saddam's regime was, and his possession of WMD. But I don't buy this excuse/reasoning, that these illustrious leaders were somehow duped or deceived by Bush.
But I guess it gives some in Washington and "easy out". If the weapons proved to be there, then could then be seen as being supportive and on the right side. And if they are not there (as now is the case), they can all yell "Bush lied to us".
But the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the various other congressional committees, along with members of Congress, did not base their decision, or their votes, on what these guys said at times publically in front of a mike. They based it on the intel reports that were given to them by the CIA and various other intel gathering agencies.
It's great when you can stand on the fence and be ready to jump to either side for one's own political expediency.
Lets face it, and again, the 9/11 Commission concurs... our intel gathering/coodination methods have been deeply flawed, and needs to be addressed.
And wouldn't the bipartisan 9/11 Commision have uncovered this so-called "conspiracy" that Bush fabricated evidence, if it existed?
I think their findings pretty much lay to rest what you, and many on the far left, have been contending Dom.
Last edited by GAC; 07-23-2004 at 08:04 AM.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
On MSNBC, they stated that the employees who witnessed the incident, were unsure what to do since it involved a former National Security Advisor, and instead notified their superiors who took the appropriate action.
The point is that there were those who saw him doing this, and reported it, or else he wouldn't have gotten caught now would he?
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
First off...excellent posts creek and RB
You're absolutely right Mike. But there are certain people that do not want to concede that point one bit. This is an oportunity to nail Bush, and try to throw everything onto this administration. Why? The 2004 election.
And by saying that, I am in no way saying this administration is not at fault at all in this scenario. But for some to say that Bush should have/could have prevented 9/11, when he was only in office 9 months before it happened, and didn't do enough, when we were doing very little for years before, is simply not wanting to face the cold hard truth.
I wish I could find a copy of a story I watched on 60 Minutes back in 1998. It concerned and scared the heck out me. The entire 1 hour show was on the terrorist threat that existed within this country, and how due to our lax immigration policies... on our borders, not monitoring foreigners who had come into this country on temp visa's that had since expired, lax security at our airports and other at-risk installations... that we were setting ourselves up for a terrorist hit. How prophetic that show was.
60 Minutes had gone around the country, using a secret camera, and documented several huge Muslim rallies/teaching seminars at various rented convention centers, etc. They had to sneak in because when they tried to gain admittance, and when they found out they were media, they were forbidden. I am not in anyway trying to make a generalized assessment of American Muslims/Islam here; but if anyone would have seen the various video footage, they would have been shocked and outraged! We're talking one huge giant anti-American "pepper rally" where they were formenting hate and yes, promoting violence due to our stance for Israel, and various other Middle Eastern policies. 60 Minutes listed the names of all the speakers/guest (which I can't remember since it's been so long ago); but many of them were here on temp visas for the purpose of these so-called seminars.
Yes Mike, I agree, we were setting ourselves up for quite some time, and sadly enough, it took a 9/11 to wake us up.
Last edited by GAC; 07-23-2004 at 08:27 AM.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
For the second day in a row, administration officials said yesterday that more of President Bush's aides knew about an investigation of former Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger than the White House originally acknowledged.
The question is sensitive because Democrats have charged that Republicans leaked word of the investigation to try to taint next week's Democratic National Convention and to distract attention from criticisms of Bush in the report of the commission investigating the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
A senior administration official, who refused to be identified, said that some National Security Council officials knew Berger -- who has resigned from his position as informal adviser to Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry -- was suspected of mishandling National Archives documents that were being sought by the commission.
...
Former Clinton press secretary Joe Lockhart, who is serving as a spokesman for Berger during the controversy, said the expanding circle of officials who the White House acknowledges had knowledge of the criminal investigation heightens his suspicion about the timing of this week's disclosure that Berger is under investigation.
"This is the third day in a row that the story has changed," Lockhart said. "First they said they didn't know. Then they said the counsel's office was aware. Now today they acknowledge the NSC was aware. Did the political operation know? Did Karl Rove know? I think it's time for them to come clean, say what they knew, when they knew it, and what role if anything they had in leaking it."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7104-200...
I have no problem at all with you going back and finding this statement by me...
But while you were searching, you had to have seen various other statements I made showing my displeasure with Bush on other issues/policies, so why didn't you post them?"If, after it is all over, it turns out that there were no WMD, and the intelligence community really screwed up, then I will be one of the first to be calling for people's heads... and that people within this administration need to be held accountable."
Why didn't you post the statement I made (if you wanted to be fair and objective about what I said previously), and a few others, that verify what I stated above? And would also go along with the statement that you pulled up, that stated that if the evidence is shown that Bush purposely and with premeditation went about to falsify intel in order to deceive the American public, that he should face impeachment.
You call that simply having "misgivings" (below)?
And when you found those, then you wouldn't have been able to say this then...
The fact is RF, the 9/11 Commission had access to alot more intel and testimony then any of us did. Most of us got our info in bits and pieces, and from partisan editorials/articles, off the internet. We "clung" to that which supported our position. We're all guilty of it.What could Bush do that would upset you GAC? I'm pretty pissed off at Sandy Berger right now, I'm just curious if you ever feel that way with regards to Bush or anyone on the conservative side of things. In the last year I've not seen anything like that from you, despite you saying that if WMD weren't found you'd have some misgivings about the Bush administration. Or do you still think we might find some?
For several months the 9/11 Commission had high-level officials (Cabinet level, CIA, etc), from this adminstration, and the previous one, testifiying before them. They gathered thousand and thousands of classifed and de-classified intel documents (again from both administrations) for review and scrutiny.
And what did their final conclusion say? Bush Lied? Bush Falsified Intel To Deceive?
I know that may upset many of you on the far left (and you still may not accept what the 9/11 Commission says). That report has to be disturbing to guys like Michael Moore, Howard Dean, and the Hollywood "elite", who carried the "Bush Lied" mantra for many, many months. But I guess they figure if they repeat something over and over enough, that it will begin to be believed.
It just simply points to a bigger problem in this country that has been going on for many years, when it came to our intel agencies, and their gathering/coordination methods. Our lax and indifferent approach, and that we were not doing enough, and emphasizing the right methods.
And sadly enough, we paid for it.
Bush may be held accountable in this next election by losing it. That none of us know. But if he is defeated, it doesn't solve the problem we are facing when it comes to our intelligence and security methods. It's not going to be like..."Bush is gone. Now all our problems will disappear".
Regardless of who wins. They had better keep on their toes, press hard, and continue to improve on Homeland Security and consolidating our intelligence agencies/methods.
Last edited by GAC; 07-23-2004 at 08:59 AM.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
Wait a minute! We're not allowed to post from a conservative rag like the Washington Times, so why are you allowed to post from a liberal rag like the Washington Post? :mhcky21:
This is a direct violation of conservative-liberal war rules! There needs to be UN sanctions involved here somehow! And France does not get to vote!
Anyway. It says they knew about the investigation. And shouldn't they have? Is there something wrong with that?
Now the Dems are charging that the Repubs leaked word of the investigation to try to taint next week's Democratic National Convention and to distract attention from criticisms of Bush in the report of the commission investigating the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
That report was more scathing on our intelligence agencies then on either administration. I doubt leaking the news of this investigation was gonna influence people to think otherwise of what the 9/11 Commission stated, or think any worse/better of G.W.
Have they got the evidence to validate/prove this accusation? If they are gonna level an accusation, then shouldn't they back it up?
And why shouldn't we, the American public, not know about this investigation to begin with? If the tables were turned, would you be upset that you didn't know about it if it was Repubs accusing Dems of leaking this story to cast a shadow on the upcoming Repub convention?
No one has said that what Berger did compromised national security, or anything on a grand scale. But what he did (as ridiculous at it seems) was a violation of the law. And I think the American public would like to know WHY he did it? Most don't simply buy this "sloppiness" excuse. He had other motives in most people's minds (maybe just stupidity, I don't know); but he has not been as open and forthright about this situation as most think he should (and never will).
Last edited by GAC; 07-23-2004 at 09:16 AM.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
Maybe the timing is suspect. Actually, I'm sure it was very carefully plotted. But, in my mind, the bigger story is still the actual act itself. No matter how much you try to deflect the attention to a lesser evil, the fact that this guy allegedy stole classified documents is the story that will get my attention the most.
Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David
Me too.
Will trade this space for a #1 starter.
It's the mother of all no-brainers.
We'll go down in history as the first society that wouldn't save itself because it wasn't cost effective ~ Kurt Vonnegut
Yet we are not talking about someone smoking pot in college or a DUI 30 years ago - regarding the timing.Originally Posted by MWM
Maybe the timing is suspect. Actually, I'm sure it was very carefully plotted. But, in my mind, the bigger story is still the actual act itself. No matter how much you try to deflect the attention to a lesser evil, the fact that this guy allegedy stole classified documents is the story that will get my attention the most.
It's a much more serious matter - in a matter of speaking - yet this administration still tries to use it as a re-election scenario, most of us see right through it when you don't wear republican colored glasses.
It's just funny how the Bush Admin can be accused (reasonably) with all sorts of things regarding misleading the public and furthering extreme, personal agendas - yet Berger stuffs a piece of paper in his pants that probably will end up being a meaningless piece of information that otherwise really wouldn't have affected anything other than maybe something that would make him look worse than he does now possibly - and my God we need to jump all over this before the convention and try to make something out of it real quick people!!!
Rush is probably foaming at the mouth now that he has a little tidbit of information he can expand on for 3 months straight to fire up those mouth breathing listeners.
The whole thing is just silly, if he did something wrong, punish him accordingly, I don't care if he worked for Clinton or Bush or whoever - most of us know both administrations made plenty of mistakes and are more concerned with their business interests and re-election more so than our best interests any ways...government is a business, it's what ultra pro-capitalism and privatization to the extreme produces.
On July 19, the Associated Press was the first to report that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger for allegedly illegally removing classified documents and personal notes from the National Archives last fall during preparations for his appearance before the 9-11 Commission.
This much is known: Berger and his lawyer, Lanny Breuer, have said for the record that: 1) Berger inadvertently put several copies of classified documents into a leather portfolio he was carrying; and 2) that Berger put handwritten notes, which he had made while reviewing the documents, in his jacket and in his pants pockets.
But rumors and confusion abound in media coverage:
Media confuses originals and copies. As the story unfolded between July 20 and July 22, conservative pundits have run with speculation that Berger removed original classified documents, rather than copies, from the archive and then destroyed them as part of a cover-up. But there is no evidence to support this accusation; in fact, according to The Washington Post, "The documents removed were copies; the National Archives retained the originals."
Media propounds rumor that Berger placed documents in his socks and pants. It was reported -- notably by CNN -- that Berger put the classified documents into his pants and/or his socks -- allegations that Breuer has said are "false" and "ridiculous" and for which there is no on-the-record substantiation. This reportage was then amplified by MSNBC hosts Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, and Pat Buchanan; by the New York Daily News and the New York Post; by Ann Coulter and Kellyanne Conway; by a slew of right-wing columnists like Linda Chavez and Cal Thomas; and by right-wing radio show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage. Worse still, some of these same media outlets and media personalities falsely attributed to Berger and his lawyer the claim that Berger had put the classified documents into his pants and/or socks -- even after Berger and his lawyer said Berger had not done so.
(full story at: http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200407230001 )
It's funny that here in Florida, they are still talking about this. I was driving to school today and our resident moron, Mark Larson, was talking about this Berger thing and didn't even mention the 9/11 report.
Me thinks me smells talking points.
http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/n...
WASHINGTON -- Several years ago, U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, mounted a campaign to crack down on the unauthorized disclosure of secret government information. Under his proposal, almost any leak of so-called "classified" material would have become a federal crime punishable by up to three years behind bars.
That campaign ultimately failed, but in what one observer described as a "deliciously ironical" twist, Shelby is now reportedly the focus of a federal probe of a leak of sensitive intelligence related to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
In a Thursday story citing unnamed congressional and law enforcement sources, the Washington Post reported that Shelby's former press secretary, Andrea Andrews, had testified before a grand jury. The investigation stems from a 2002 Cable News Network story that intelligence officials had intercepted two messages the day before the attacks signaling that something was to happen the next day, according to the Post. The Arabic messages were not translated until Sept. 12.
Shelby was a top member of the Senate intelligence committee when the CNN story broke in June 2002. Because senators can only serve on the committee for eight years, Shelby has since rotated off the panel and now heads the Senate banking committee
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote
