F-National Security Advisor in DEEP doo-doo

Bluegill said:
No one is talking about it because it's so non-controversial. I mean, if it's probably right, then why discuss it?

I'm thinking something along the lines of,

"Mr. Berger, you have classified documents in your pants."

"Oh dear! If I'm wearing security briefs under my trousers, then what kind of briefs did I put back into the safe??"

Soundtrack: whah-whah

Laughtrack: Hah hah hah hah!


...or something like that.
Click to expand...

Are those classified documents in your pants or are you just happy to see me?
 
Dorian Gray said:
Gosh, I don't know. What WOULD people be saying if anyone from the current administration had done this?

Let's Find Out, Shall We?



But first, explain how Berger could have gotten the stuff in the first place? I mean, a person with top security clearance, a previous cabinet post, and personal relationships with personnel at this place, allowed to go in and retrieve notes that he himself had written?

Oh, wait a minute........
Click to expand...

Whoa...talk about apples and oranges! Tell me, were Bush's questionable/missing records classified at all...? Not even "CONFIDENTIAL"?? And were the archive documents classified??

Listen, I've handled classified material before...crypto keying material. Guess what they do to you if you're military and happen to "misplace" a crypto key?? Much less get caught stuffing your fruit of the looms with it? Answer: A trip to Ft. Leavenworth.

Sandy Berger has got some 'splainin' to do! The CIA leak is another issue to be decided on it's own merits. Whether the admin is guilty or innocent of the leak...or are guilty or innocent of swiping GWB's NG records has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Sandy Berger wore classified documents as underwear. Skeptics need to unite against this kind of fallacious reasoning!


-z
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Are those classified documents in your pants or are you just happy to see me?
Click to expand...

:big:

I bow to you sir....damn! I wish I'd have said it first!!

:big:
 
The docs-in-socs scandal is, alas, overblown. Sources reveal that Berger is a devoted fan of Zydeco music, no more no less.
lyrics
 
Just another scandal inside the beltway. I'm sure the FBI will have its crack investigators on the job.
 
You are pathetic. You are comparing the Berger theft (which there is no dispute over) to a wild speculation you have no proof of. You are not a skeptic, goodbye.
Click to expand...
Is it a theft? Where's your proof?

Would you feel better if I compared it to the outing of the CIA agent, which was actually done? Or perhaps it would be better to compare it to WMDs, which are a wild speculation Bush has no proof of?

Take a look at Dorain Gray folks, this is the sort of thinking we should all shun together. If you want to hate Bush, that's fine. When your hate gets in the way of your critical thining skills (assuming you had any in the first place) its time to re-examine yourself.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with this. No one should EVER sacrifice their critical thining skills. Whatever thining skills are.

And it's "DORIAN" - the name is right there for you to copy. If simple facts like these escape your attention, how can we put any faith in your ability to deal with more complex concepts like Bush's AWOL problem?

Whoa...talk about apples and oranges! Tell me, were Bush's questionable/missing records classified at all...? Not even "CONFIDENTIAL"?? And were the archive documents classified??
Click to expand...
If they weren't why the hell were they so hard to access for the media? Why could no one copy them, take them out of the room, look at 25% of them, etc., and why is it that they just so happen to have been the ones destroyed 'accidentally'. For documents that were not classified in any way, Bush's National Guard records were some of the hardest documents to get access to in US history.

NOT apples and oranges. In the one case, someone allegedly stole documents, ostensibly for partisan reasons. In the other case, someone allegedly destroyed documents for partisan reasons. In both cases, there was somewhat of a breach of security, and somewhat of a careless handling of documents.
 
By the way, folks, Sandy Berger allegedly did all this LAST FALL! Yes, the document-swiping happened in September and October of 2003, and an investigation was begun then. Also, rather than catching Berger and calling him on his deeds, the director decided to code the documents to 'see' if they were being stolen. Either this is very irresponsible on the director's part, as it allowed documents to be stolen, or there is nothing wrong with the documents being taken.

The point is, Berger's actions happened last year, and an investigation was launched then. Can anyone think of a reason why this would be brought up right at this particular time? Hmmmm, let's see....... could it be to deflect attention away from the 9/11 Commision's report? Could it be strategically similar to Tom Ridge's totally vague terrorist announcement two days after Edwards was chosen as Kerry's running mate?

I am in no way apologizing for Berger's actions, if found to be criminal. He should get what is coming to him. But bringing it up now is a partisan political tactic. Berger was looking at the documents in the first place at the request of the 9/11 Commission. He had security clearance. He had seen the documents before. The documents he allegedly stole were copies, not the originals. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission has the same documents, and they aren't complaining about Berger. No authority is accusing Berger of hiding or trying to hide information, nor stealing secrets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom