Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

December 21, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

SANDY BERGER UPDATE....Sandy Berger not only took documents from the National Archives and hid them in his sock, but stashed them under a construction trailer and later retrieved them? WTF? At the very least, you'd think the guy would have boned up on his tradecraft by reading some John LeCarre novels.

At this point, I'd be willing to commute his sentence and declare a moratorium on all further mockery if he'd just fess up and tell us what he was up to. I'm bursting with curiosity.

Kevin Drum 12:03 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (95)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

charge, try, convict. incarcerate the jerk.

Posted by: cleek on December 21, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

All he needs to do is check himself into rehab.

Maybe he'll get the same place Trump is sending Miss USA.

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 21, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

Liberals like Sandy Berger and Bill Clinton always get into trouble by putting stuff inside their pants. That's what you get when you can't keep your zipper zipped.

Posted by: Al on December 21, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

Rehab, duh!

Well damn, the Divine MsN beat me to it.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 21, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

Why didn't Laura have the cancer removed from her side while she was at it?

Posted by: olds88 on December 21, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

He's pretty much guaranteed that the whole country will eventually see the document he was trying to destroy.

Wish it was the minutes of Cheney's 2001 energy meeting.

Posted by: rewolfrats on December 21, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

Although I am disturbed about Mr. Berger's behavior, a government of, by and for the people should have no secrets from them. I am particularly troubled by presidents sealing their archives. These documents belong to the people of the US, not the president, and should be public records.

There may be a few secrets, perhaps technological, that need to be kept from the people, but they should be very few.

Posted by: Hostile on December 21, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

from the linked article:

He was fined $50,000, ordered to perform 100 hours of community service and was barred from access to classified material for three years.

Barred from accessing classified material for three years -- now there's some punishment!

Posted by: Disputo on December 21, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

Around the same time there were some details of national intelligence estimates and other details that support clinton's position on what happened prior to 9/11 and what his administration did to track down OBL. As the Bush administration was throwing the blame on the Clinton administration, some very convincing articles came out in the NYT and other papers that pretty much shut up the Bushies.
I always thought that this is the Sandy Berger connection. That he was leaking documents that would have otherwise been kept in a vault that discredit the bushies and show that clinton at least tried.
JMHO

Posted by: yep on December 21, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

Were these original documents or copies of original documents. He's an idiot for trying to sneak out copies of documents, he's a criminal for trying to sneak out originals.

My understanding was that he was taking copies to help prepare for the 9/11 commission. I'm not making any excuses for that, it was illegal and he knew it, but it pales in comparison to any original documents being taken out and/or destroyed.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on December 21, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

a government of, by and for the people should have no secrets from them

bawahahhaahahahha!!

say, can anyone tell me what the laws regarding ID verification at airports are ? no? too bad for us.

Posted by: cleek on December 21, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

Copies.

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 21, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Were these original documents or copies of original documents. He's an idiot for trying to sneak out copies of documents, he's a criminal for trying to sneak out originals.

According to the linked article, the Archives staff were suspicious that Berger was removing docs, so they started making copies; also, he did destroy some docs after being confronted.

But, hey, at least he can't do this again for a couple years...

Posted by: Disputo on December 21, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Why didn't Laura have the cancer removed from her side while she was at it?

ROTFLMAO!!!!

And I'm sure all the wing-nuts on this site will fully back the impeachment of GWB for lying us into this god forsaken war, his illegal spying, and torture-correct??

Posted by: bobbyk on December 21, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Like Kevin, I too would love to find out the reallity. My guess is that Berger had some good reason to destroy these documents. I don't think we sill ever find out, though. The prosecutor gave him a sweetheart deal, just as if he had cooperated, even though he didn't cooperate. There is no leverage remaining.

Conceivably, these documents might have changed the course of history. They might have shown the 9/11 Commission something useful to understanding why we didn't prevent 9/11. If they had, the 9/11 Report and ensuing legislation might have been different.

Or, they might have shown something embarassing to Hillary Clinton, which would have prevented her from being elected President.

But, as I said, I think we will never know what was on those memos.

Posted by: ex-liberal on December 21, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal,

I dont think he destroyed anything that wasnt copied on file. The library (as I remember) said that they have all the documents (either copies or originals). And nothing was destroyed. So the question would be: why would he want to take a copy of classified info. And thats why I think it was to backup a position in a leak to the press.

Posted by: yep on December 21, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

Dear conservotards

THESE WERE COPIES. No original document were lost. You can stop with the asinine conspiracy fantasies. Also, NO ONE OTHER THAN BERGER EVER SAW THE DOCS. No breech of classified information.

Of course this is way worse than outing one of our main WMD undercover operatives deliberately.

Posted by: jimBOB on December 21, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

Where's Fawn Hall when you need her?

Posted by: AngryOne on December 21, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

Some of you guys need to click the link.

Berger was picking documents at the archive the 9/11 Commission to look at. Not taking them out for the Commission to look at. So, his motivation is unknown.

However, copies of all of the documents exist. Copies of all of the documents were given to the 9/11 Commission.

Posted by: Nathan on December 21, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

He proved to ALL the RIGHTWINGNUTS that Clinton had a Very good Grasp on Terrorists and had been taking action.It also showed that the Bushies didn't think terror was very important and took no action.Remember the Cole.that was at the end of the Clinton Adm.and was up to Bush to do somthing.and he did nothing.That was what Berger did.Do you people remember nothing.

Posted by: Thomas3.6 1/2 on December 21, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

THESE WERE COPIES. No original document were lost. You can stop with the asinine conspiracy fantasies. Also, NO ONE OTHER THAN BERGER EVER SAW THE DOCS. No breach of classified information.

Of course this is way worse than outing one of our main WMD undercover operatives deliberately.

How the hell do you know who Berger showed the documents to? He's been lying about this from day one.

The "they were only copies" meme isn't going to fly. Many copies were different, with various handwritten notes.

The MSNBC story somehow omitted two paragraphs from the original AP story.

But Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., outgoing chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, said he's not convinced that the Archives can account for all the documents taken by Berger. Davis said working papers of National Security Council staff members are not inventoried by the Archives.

"There is absolutely no way to determine if Berger swiped any of these original documents. Consequently, there is no way to ever know if the 9/11 Commission received all required materials," Davis said.

You might want to avoid bringing up the Plame affair again. If you've been keeping up, your side has had its face thoroughly smacked into the mud on this non-issue, which is probably why it has become a non-story in the media.

As to motivations, I doubt Berger would have been sweating blood about what these documents said if he thought they were going to reflect favorably on the Clinton administration's behavior prior to 9/11. Remember that Berger was one of the two people (the other was Bruce Lindsey) who sat with Clinton while Clinton was testifying for the Commission.

Posted by: monkeybone on December 21, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

This is bizarre and slimy behavior from a man of Berger's stature, but it leads me to think that the documents must relate to some personal shortcoming or private pecadillo. Maybe Berger likes to wear women's underwear or has a gay lover or some such. I highly doubt that Berger would engage in such infantile behavior (hiding documents under a trailer?), if the documents only implicated Bill or Hillary Clinton. Why bother? What's the payoff?

I know the right-wing would like nothing more than a fresh Clinton scandal to gin up the Freeper hate machine again and take the heat off the dipshit loser sitting in the Oval Office currently. In fact, Drudge has had a link to this story up on his website for three days running, hoping for another Clinton bimbo eruption to boost his hit rate. Maybe Sandy just has a kleptomania problem and needs treatment. Whatever...

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on December 21, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

If I had to speculate, it was probably something related to al Qaeda that embarassed Berger personally.

Maybe something like "Why are we worried so much about some guy sitting in a tent!"

Posted by: Nathan on December 21, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

If you've been keeping up, your side has had its face thoroughly smacked into the mud on this non-issue, which is probably why it has become a non-story in the media.

it's become a non-story because there haven't been any new developments in the past year. up until the news about Cheney testifying, there was nothing new to report. for further information, see definition/etymology of the word "news".

Posted by: cleek on December 21, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

They were copies. Period. No orignials were lost. Period. And, a little research reveals that many of these were documents Berger himself wrote. As to the quotes from Rep. Davis, since he's not the custodian of these documents, he doesn't really know, and being a Repub, is just trying to play politics. The folks who ARE the custodians say nothing is missing.

Posted by: CN on December 21, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

cleek has apparently never heard of Armitage.

Posted by: Nathan on December 21, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

I too would love to find out the reallity. [sic]

"ex-liberal" has never before shown an interest in reality, only neocon bullshit.

Posted by: Gregory on December 21, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

If I had to speculate, it was probably something related to al Qaeda that embarassed Berger personally.

You know, that's true.

When Nathan speculates, he ascribes motivations and opinions to people regardless of their veracity. Shame on you, Nathan.

Posted by: Gregory on December 21, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

He also put a stop to the rightwing myth that Clinton didn't fire a missle at Osama when he had the chance.We now know that a Saudi Prince was standing next to Osama.

Posted by: Thomas3.6 1/2 on December 21, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal" wrote: They might have shown the 9/11 Commission something useful to understanding why we didn't prevent 9/11.

Seven words, "ex-liberal": Bin Laden determined to strike in US.

As far as we know, Bush took no action at all after receiving this warning. But I don't think the reason is all that mysterious; Bush has abundantly demonstrated his fecklessness and incompetence since then, after all.

Posted by: Gregory on December 21, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

the inspector general of the national security archives provides a few more details of the "bad guy sandy berger story"

we only have a small piece of what the story

i am sure sandy berger has spent thousands of hours at the archive and was familiar with the rules and that he was well known to the staff

i am curious about what sandy berger trying to accomplish with the documents in question

i am just as curious about what archive employees were up to when they started watching sandy berger for suspicious behavior

Posted by: jamzo on December 21, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Monkey needs another bone.Cheney to be called to the stand in Plame outing case.Non-issue hmmm!!!

Posted by: Thomas3.6 1/2 on December 21, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

From Berger's written statement:

"In the course of reviewing over several days thousands of pages of documents on behalf of the Clinton administration in connection with requests by the September 11 commission, I inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives...when I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded."

Pretty much every word here has been shown to be a lie.

Berger was looking for copies of the "after action" report on the Millenium Plot. He took multiple copies of the same paper, which implies that he wasn't after the information in the paper, but the added notes.

The idea that Berger did this on his own for personal reasons is bonkers. I've noticed that the Clintons are keeping documents in this case from being released under the FOIA, something which would have liberals pitching fits if it was the Bush administration.

But by all means, keep pulling excuses out of your arses. Amazing the difference in perception when a perp is a Democrat.

Posted by: monkeybone on December 21, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney to be called to the stand in Plame outing case. Non-issue hmmm!!!

For the defense, you twit.

Posted by: monkeybone on December 21, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory is apparently unfamiliar with the definition of "speculate"

Posted by: Nathan on December 21, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Monkeybone wins the strawman award.How in the heck did you get all that from that statment,Must listen to Rush!

Posted by: Thomas3.6 1/2 on December 21, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Monkeybone wins the strawman award. How in the heck did you get all that from that statment...

Read the story this entire thread was based on, then compare the currently known facts with what Berger said before. Take your time.

Posted by: monkeybone on December 21, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

The Defense is the only side in the courtroom.Nobody else can ask Cheney any questions.Twit you are indeed Numnuts.

Posted by: Thomas3.6 1/2 on December 21, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

Who's Currently known facts? The Trogalites,Rush,Hannity or Miss Coulter? Monkey you really need a bath you smell somthing awfull.

Posted by: Thomas3.6 1/2 on December 21, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Berger was looking for copies of the "after action" report on the Millenium Plot.

This thread is going to set some kind of record for most confident assertions of fact that are actually complete guesses. From both sides.

Posted by: Steve on December 21, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

So, simianbone, you really believe there was second spitter, er shooter, on that grassy knoll?

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 21, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory is apparently unfamiliar with the definition of "speculate"

Nathan, I don't see the word "speculate" in the seven words I quoted.

And I'm familiar enough with the definition of "speculate" to know that any action Bush took in response to the August 6 PDB is ineed a matter of speculation -- there's no public record of him doing anything at all.

Except telling his briefer "You've covered your ass now."

Good Ford, I pity your clients.

Posted by: Gregory on December 21, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory,

I'm referring to this post: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_12/010434.php#1022285

Posted by: Nathan on December 21, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

since you apparently are unfamiliar with the meaning of "speculate", it means in the Berger context:

to ascribe a potential motivation or opinion without knowledge as to its veracity.

that's why it's called "speculation". it's a fucking reasoned guess.

asshole.

Posted by: Nathan on December 21, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

monkeybone,

Why isn't the "they were only copies" meme going to fly? After all, it's right there in the story you linked to. In fact, except for the quote from Rep. Davis in which he makes some uninformed speculation, the stories are identical (except that Kevin's link clarifies "the interview notes said" to read "said notes prepared by the inspector general's office").

Since no one from the National Archives has ever expressed the same suspicions that Rep. Davis voices, there's good reason to suspect his suspicions. Frankly, I'm pretty sure that by age 22 I had spent more time in the National Archives and the National Record Center than Rep. Davis ever has, and I probably know more about how the place works than he does.

In fact, every story about this affair states that Berger took copies with him; what the stories don't say is that these were unique copies with handwritten notes.

Likewise, there's no indication that Berger was "sweating blood" about what these documents said -- that appears to be purely an invention of yours. After removing the documents from the archives, he took them to his office rather than destroying them; that happened only after the Archives called Berger to "discuss" the missing documents. The events themselves and the timeline don't logically lead to your conclusion.

The "they were only copies" meme isn't going to fly. Many copies were different, with various handwritten notes.

As to motivations, I doubt Berger would have been sweating blood about what these documents said if he thought they were going to reflect favorably on the Clinton administration's behavior prior to 9/11.

Posted by: monkeybone on December 21, 2006 at 1:23 PM |

Posted by: Keith on December 21, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

jimBob wrote:

"THESE WERE COPIES"
_________________

With respect, jim, you could be wrong. They might have been different versions of various memos, but the belief is they were not copies. The apparent contention is that Mr. Burger might have been attempting to remove earlier versions of memos containing margin notes or the like.

Posted by: Trashhauler on December 21, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

My point exactly Steve,MonkeyWhore wants to make up facts.And at the time this happened Fox news did a report on this issue and found out that nobody lays a hand on any Document,You request a document and a copy is made,This is what you get to see.Never the Original document but Fox glossed over that the best they could.Sorry MonkeyWhore you still stink.

Posted by: Thomas3.6 1/2 on December 21, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

He needed to just tearfully accept Jesus as his savior and then we could move on.

Posted by: Speed on December 21, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan,

That's correct, a useful speculation here would be a reasoned guess. Since your "speculation" appears to be entirely unsupported by the known facts, certainly those laid out by the story Kevin links to, it does not appear to be a reasoned guess at all.

It does "ascribe... motivation... without knowledge as to its veracity." However, since no one involved with this case -- not those members of the Bush Administration who testified before the 9-11 Commission, not members of that Commission, and not the staff of the National Archives -- has suggested that the docs contained information about al-Qaeda that would embarrass Berger personally, we can make a good guess about the veracity of your ascription: it has none.

I can't say how a "fucking reasoned guess" is any different, but I suspect that it's not a lawyerly term or art. Are you giving us your legal expertise here in the same fashion Sen. Frist offered his medical expertise when he "diagnosed" Terri Schiavo without ever having seen her (and produced a diagnosis completely at odds with the conclusions from her post-mortem)?

Readers can conclude for themselves who best deserves the epithet you concluded with.

since you apparently are unfamiliar with the meaning of "speculate", it means in the Berger context:
to ascribe a potential motivation or opinion without knowledge as to its veracity.

that's why it's called "speculation". it's a fucking reasoned guess.

asshole.
Posted by: Nathan on December 21, 2006 at 3:50 PM |

Posted by: keith on December 21, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe Sandy was reading Human Events, the Weekly Standard, and the National Review and decided their anti-Clinton rants were just too lame. So he decided he's give them something worth writing about.

Posted by: pgl on December 21, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

that's why it's called "speculation". it's a fucking reasoned guess

Nice try, Nathan, but your history of "reasoned guesses" about the motivations and opinions of the posters here have shown that your speculations -- biased, ignorant, reeking of bullshit and thoroughly dishonest -- aren't worth a bucket of piss.

Which is exactly what I said. Really, it doesn't matter what the context; you've shown your opinions to be worthless even when they aren't pulled straight out of your ass.

It's a pity you aren't familiar with the meaning of "honesty," Nathan. I pity your clients.

Posted by: Gregory on December 21, 2006 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

By the way, Nathan, since you're too slow on the uptake to figure out I wasn't describing your "speculation" as a "reasoned guess" "without regard to its veracity" means you just make shit upthat you can't defend when called on it. "Without regard to its veracity" means you don't care if it's true, as long as it fits your biases.

As keith said, I'm confident with letting readers conclude for themselves who best deserves the epithet you concluded with.

Posted by: Gregory on December 21, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory, I'll use small words so you'll understand: You were attacking my speculation for being a speculation. That's just dumb.

Keith, my speculation is no more unreasoned than all of the others on this thread. And there's a reason why I called it a speculation, unlike all the posters here who reek with certainty. Its a possible explanation. How probable is it? I don't know. More probable than that the documents referred to some personal pecadillo of Berger's. A. why would such references be in the NSC papers. B. the papers were going to be given to the 9/11 Commission, not hte press.
Is it more probable than that the papers referred to some failing of Clinton? I think so. Berger seems to have been the only person concerned with the contents of NSC working papers.
Now does this make my speculation true or even more than 50% likely? Not at all. What is most likely is that we're all wrong. But I'd put the odds of my speculation being true as being higher than the other speculations I have seen on this thread.

As for my epithet to Gregory, considering that he needlessly insults me with ad hominems (and as he has actually admitted -- does not make substantive arguments), I think it was well-deserved.

Posted by: Nathan on December 21, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory, I'll use small words so you'll understand: You were attacking my speculation for being a speculation. That's just dumb.

No, Nathan, I was attacking your speculation as coming from a demonstrably dishonest source, and therefore valueless.

Your failure to recognize such may be just dumb, but since I'm sure you get the same in court all the time, I'll just chalk it up to more dishonesty. You aren't fooling anyone, Nathan.

my speculation is no more unreasoned than all of the others on this thread

Whether it's reasoned or not is irrelevant. You're too biased and dishonest to even consider your speculation as other than an object of derision. You fool no one, Nathan.

considering that he needlessly insults me with ad hominems

Tsk, tsk, Nathan -- pointing out your dishonesty, and your record of dishonesty in the past, isn't "needlessly insult[ing you] with ad hominems," it's reminding the thread that you've impeached your own credibility...yes!...with your baseless and false "speculation" -- which you've laughably tried and failed to defend, and yet refused to admit to.

If you don't want to be pointed out as dishonest, Nathan, your best option would be not to be dishonest.

Oops, too late.

But the responsibility is no one but yours, which is why, again, I'm happy to leave it to readers to decide for themselves who best deserves the epithet you concluded with.

Posted by: Gregory on December 21, 2006 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

dishonest?

WTF are you talking about?

Are you still harping on some thread six months ago?

Gregory and several other posters made some ludicrous assertions on a thread (I don't recall the topic). I called them on those assertions. Gregory went ballistic because he hadn't specifically made every last one of the assertions (he had made at least one and others had made the others). After he was done sputtering I stated that I understood that he did not want to be misattributed with some of those assertions. Somehow this makes me "dishones" and he tiresomely repeats this on every thread.
I assume your obsessive-compulsive behavior has been diagnosed as such?

Posted by: Nathan on December 21, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

Sandy Berger doesn't bother libs.

Posted by: the mick on December 21, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory use smaller words for Nathan.You lie.You make stuff up,You are in a small rightwing world where the truth has no right to be in.Now ask the posters here, Has Gregory and I made it clear, YOU ARE A LIAR.

Posted by: Thomas3.6 1/2 on December 21, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

ah, Gregory's eight-year-old brother showed up. that's really child abuse.

Posted by: Nathan on December 21, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK
since you apparently are unfamiliar with the meaning of "speculate", it means in the Berger context:

to ascribe a potential motivation or opinion without knowledge as to its veracity.

Its interesting that you've taken what you were accused of "regardless of its veracity" and changed it to "without knowledge...", which is very different, and that used that as your basis for accusing Gregory of not knowing what "speculate" means.

Yes, speculation means that you are acting without knowledge of some relevant facts, it does not mean that you are acting without regard for relevant facts. Gregory's accusation, as he made it, showed no lack of knowledge of what "speculate" means, you dishonestly rewrote it to seem to.

Which is, really, par for the course for you, but its still amusing every time you pull one of these transparent efforts at trying to rewrite the immediate past to justify accusing someone else of not knowing what they are talking about, or otherwise attacking them.

Posted by: cmdicely on December 21, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK
Gregory and several other posters made some ludicrous assertions on a thread (I don't recall the topic). I called them on those assertions. Gregory went ballistic because he hadn't specifically made every last one of the assertions (he had made at least one and others had made the others).

More accurately, most of the people you accused had made none of the accusatiosn you ascribed to individually to each and every member of the group you accused of having made them.

Just as in this thread, you attempted to rewrite the immediate past when it was readily accessible to make unjustified attacks.

Posted by: cmdicely on December 21, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Gregory Congrats on having a 8 Year old brother.I hope your mom didn't give him some girly name like Nathan or Kennith.

Posted by: Thomas3.6 1/2 on December 21, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

More accurately, most of the people you accused had made none of the accusatiosn you ascribed to individually to each and every member of the group you accused of having made them.

Exactly, cmdicely. Furthermore, Nathan makes it sound like he was corrected and then swiftly accepted the correction. To the contrary, he spent at least an entire thread denying that his characterizations were wrong, while failing to produce the (nonexistent, of course) evidence that he was truthful. Too, note that "stat[ing] that I understood that he did not want to be misattributed with some of those assertions" falls far short of admitting that Nathan did, indeed, make an characterization he couldn't substantiate, and, as cmdicely notes, against more than one person.

Moreover, that incident isn't the only time Nathan has made characterizations without regard to their veracity, failed to produce corroboration when challenged, and then failed to withdraw his statement.

See, that's the difference between you and us, Nathan. We can back up our characterizations of you -- cmdicely just pwnzed you with just such an example. You can't do the same.

And now, you act shocked and amazed that one of your critics points out that -- exactly as I described, exactly as cmdicely noted -- you show little regard for the truth, and more -- ho, ho! -- act like noting your penchant for dishonesty is a flaw in the ones who point it out, not you for being dishonest. You're a real piece of work, Nathan.

Frankly, I don't see how it's immature to cut to the chase and call you a liar, Nathan. Just as I said in my first post addressing you, you are, indeed, a liar, and thus your speculations, uniquely -- well, not so uniquely, there are several who share your political outlook who exhibit the same disregard for the truth -- lack credibility.

Good Ford, Nathan, even your defenses of your nonexistent honesty and honor are feeble and easily punctured, just like your bloated but weak ego. One shudders how often you must be bested in the courtroom, and worse, how you might react. I truly pity your clients.

Posted by: Gregory on December 21, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory and several other posters made some ludicrous assertions on a thread (I don't recall the topic). I called them on those assertions.

Speaking of dishonesty, note that Nathan is still claiming that I and others made the assertions that he called us on, when the entire brouhaha was the fact that we didn't, and Nathan, of course, neither could demonstrate that he had nor admit his error.

Yes, Nathan. Dishonesty, indeed.

Posted by: Gregory on December 21, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

"accusatiosn you ascribed to individually to each and every member of the group you accused of having made them."

That's a lie.

Gregory, as I said above, you did make at least one of those assertions. As did cmdicely (a different one).

Posted by: Nathan on December 21, 2006 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

Point being Nathan, You lied,Stop being like G.W and just admitt that Gregory and CMdicely are correct and you lied.

Posted by: Thomas3.6 1/2 on December 21, 2006 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

It is reasonable to think that a man who hides stolen documents in the manner Berger did, subsequently destroying the documents, and then deliberately lying about his behavior when caught, was trying to destroy evidence contained in the specific document removed. It has never been made clear whether the documents removed, and subsequently destroyed, contained notations particular to that document.

I certainly don't the truth of the matter, but among the most reasonable explanations is that Berger was attempting to destroy evidence that implicated his or his boss's performance, and the Bush Administration subsequently went easy on him in a quite quid pro quo, due to evidence that implicated it's performance, which it wished to remain undisclosed.

Posted by: Will Allen on December 21, 2006 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

Jimmy Carter stole Dennis Ross's map because he could get away with it. He then lied about it.

Berger removed these documents for a better reason, because they had personal notations that he and other senior Clinton types had scribbled in the margins or by underlining that look stupid or incompetent in hindsight.

Or maybe they were about his toe-sucking or wearing ladies' undergarments. But probably they revealed that the 9/11 movie on ABC had only scratched the surface of Billy Jeff's forty thieves and their incompetence!

Can you imagine the brouhaha that would have ensued had it been a Repub stealing docs? After the Plame flame-out over precisely nothing? The MSM is colluding in the crimes of the left and inventing crimes by the right. Billy Jeff and his crew are a left-wing cabal supported by the LAT and NYT and the pilot fish.

Like his boss Billy Jeff, Berger is a liar through and through, and guilty of a felony that should bar him from classified documents for life. He is actually not a knave, but as Billy Jeff first suggested, a fool.

Not as big a fool as Carter, who has retired that cup!

Of course, the NYT won't cover this. It isn't news unless it hurts Bush and Repubs.

Posted by: daveinboca on December 21, 2006 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

It falls into the same catagory as Some People Say.One of Hannity's favotites.Or a Majority of Americans believe,As Rush like to use.These are all lies.

Posted by: Thomas3.6 1/2 on December 21, 2006 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

Make that "quiet quid pro quo", of course.

Posted by: Will Allen on December 21, 2006 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

Davey the documents that Berger took are still there.YOU CAN ONLY RECIEVE COPIES OF DOCUMENT REQUESTED.You righties just have to invent somthing to make conversation.

Posted by: Thomas3.6 1/2 on December 21, 2006 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory, as I said above, you did make at least one of those assertions. As did cmdicely (a different one).

See, the thing is, Nathan, to accuse someone of lying, they have to have actually lied. You know, Nathan, like you just did.

No, Nathan, I didn't -- and given that you said you can't even remember the topic, you're in no better a position to prove it now than you were then. Indeed, worse, which is amazing, considering that you utterly failed before.

And neither did cmdicely -- there is no other cmdicely, so far as I can tell.

Unless you're returning to your dishonest argument that because cmdicely and I posted comments to a thread that discussed the topic in question (yes, I remember it, and no, I'm not going to help you out), we needs must agree with all the assertions posted there.

You are, quite simply, lying, Nathan. But that's okay, I guess -- we've come to expect that from you.

The sad thing is, you're lying about things that we can point out in this very thread, while you're making assertions that you admit you can't prove. Truly, I pity your clients.

Posted by: Gregory on December 21, 2006 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

you're more than welcome to post a link to the relevant thread.

but I'm done indulging your juvenile onanism

Posted by: Nathan on December 21, 2006 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK
Gregory, as I said above, you did make at least one of those assertions. As did cmdicely (a different one).

See, here's the thing, Nathan. Unless the different speakers are, for instance, spokespersons for the same person or organization, acting in that capacity when they make the statements, you cannot go from (as an example):

Gregory said President Bush should be executed for his crimes. cmdicely said President Bush should be imprisoned for life for his crimes. JRandomPoster said President Bush should be fined $1.8 billion dollars, serve 12,000 hours of community service, and receive 26 years of probation for his crimes.

to:

Gregory, cmdicely, and JRandomPoster think President Bush should be fined, given community service, placed on probation, executed, and imprisoned for life. What a bunch of wackos!

And expect not to be called on your utter dishonesty. And yet, your defense of your actiosn is that you were “honest” because you did exactly that.

Of course, your rewriting of Gregory's accusation in this thread to falsely accuse him of faulting you for making a speculation just because it was a speculation doesn't even have that non-defense available.

Posted by: cmdicely on December 21, 2006 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

you're more than welcome to post a link to the relevant thread.

cmdicely just did you one better, Nathan -- quoted your dishonesty specifically.

But like he said, given the fact that you misrepresented what I said in this very thread, I'd be perfectly content to let readers judge for themselves which of our claims is credible.

Nathan, for pity's sake, you just made assertions about a topic you admitted you couldn't remember, and then insisted on your version of events. Do you always rewrite debates in which you've been pwnzed so that you come out ahead? What do you, stroll down Death Row chuckling to yourself about all those victories for your clients? Good Ford, I pity your clients.

Posted by: Gregory on December 21, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

Oops, my bad -- cmdicely just posted an example, not your actual comments from the earlier thread. I stand corrected. They do, however, closely mirror your falsehoods from earlier, though.

And again, given your demonstrable falsehoods in this very thread -- tell us, Nathan, is pointing out your lies here "onanism" as well? -- again, I'm happy to stand on my credibility and let the chips fall where they may as far as yours is concerned.

Posted by: Gregory on December 21, 2006 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

By the by, Nathan, see where I just now noted that I misread cmdicely's post, and corrected myself at once? That's called intellectual honesty. I wanted to call it to your attention since you seem to be a stranger to it.

Posted by: Gregory on December 21, 2006 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

The deadbeat press, so much wasted on the fact that Berger "hide this info" but not an ounce of what it was that Berger was trying to hide.

Oh those hot sheet priorities of todays post-Judith Miller scoop-less press world, and for this lenghty article the press somehow thinks they need a shield law. I figure as long as the press doesn't want to get the facts, why bother needing protection.

Posted by: Cheryl on December 21, 2006 at 7:56 PM | PERMALINK
you're more than welcome to post a link to the relevant thread.

While, given your vast history of dishonest attacks, is often hard to trace back to a particular one, I believe the particular bit of dishonesty at issue is the one in this thread where you pose a question that suggests Cranky Observer, Gregory, and I had claimed that sealed Espionage Act indictments were forthcoming in the Plame case, when none of the three of us had in fact said that such indictments were forthcoming, and your defense in that thread was that you were "conflating things for the sake of brevity", and that since I'd once "seemed gung ho" to you about Espionage Act charges (though I'd never suggested they were forthcoming, either), and apparently other people had mentioned sealed indictments, it was fair to suggest that as a group we had predicted sealed Espionage Act indictments.

You later changed that defense, in the face of no one buying it, to one based, instead of "conflating for brevity", on the notional "rhetorical humor" of the misrepresentation.


Posted by: cmdicely on December 21, 2006 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

the particular bit of dishonesty at issue is the one in this thread

Exactly. (With all due respect to cmdicely, given Nathan's self-professed ignorance of the topic at hand -- good Ford, I can't believe he asserted vindication after admitting that! -- I wasn't going to help him out.)

I love about that thread the fact that cmdicely, Cranky and I all challenged Nathan's characterization at once, requesting that he provide a link to such a statement -- an impossible task, I'll own -- and Nathan's lengthy blustering, obfuscation and reassertion of the claim in lieu of proof.

Although I have to admit, the bit where he claimed it was all a joke was my favorite.

Now, Nathan, that your, ah, memory is refreshed: You claimed in this thread that you'd proven I made the statements you claim. I invite you to demonstrate your claim here with a link -- or else we've caught you in another lie, haven't we?

Posted by: Gregory on December 21, 2006 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

I retract part of that, actually: Nathan didn't exactly claim he'd proven I made the statement he attributed to me; he merely asserted I had, in fact, done so. So my challenge is, indeed, to prove I made the statement, as he obviously has no earlier proof to point to.

It's that intellectual honesty thing again, Nathan. You ought to look it up.

Posted by: Gregory on December 21, 2006 at 8:10 PM | PERMALINK

A Sandy Berger story at this point is the definitive red herring, to divert attention from the opportunity costs of the Cheney/Bush war, the deepening problems of the occupation of Iraq, growing opposition to administration policies and ongoing discredited statements. Dem congress--save the bill of rights. Bring 'em on, Patrick Fitzgerald. The administration took the country to war on false pretenses, on lies.
Woodrow Wilson: ... "The history of liberty is the history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it."

Posted by: consider wisely always on December 21, 2006 at 10:04 PM | PERMALINK

Dem congress--save the bill of rights.

Unfortunately, Pelosi is working on further restrictions.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on December 21, 2006 at 10:33 PM | PERMALINK

Oh yes, cwa, those sinister Republicans conspired to have a former National Security Advisor for a Democratic Administration steal classified documents from the National Archives and destroy them, in an effort to put forth a red herring.

Posted by: Will Allen on December 21, 2006 at 11:09 PM | PERMALINK

SPECULATION? WTF?

Team Clinton's attempt to re-write history is falling apart. Berger has been caught with his pants down and you sorry yellowbellies can't even call a spade a spade! I say... WHAT GIVES?

WHY would Sandy Berger thieve top secret docs, hide them under a unicorn, then retrieve them and cut them into tiny pieces?

Answer is MARGINALIA.

Berger disappeared the copies that contained the 'marginalia' because the CLinton spin machine wouldn't be able to spin it away. It had to get gone!

WHY??????

Got Able Danger?

You Clinton lovers sure sound funny lookin when you've all painted yourselves into a corner with your feet stuck in your pie holes.

Please keep fluffin Hillary... PLEASE!

Posted by: trax on December 22, 2006 at 12:08 AM | PERMALINK

The report on Sandy Berger was issued more than a year after Mr. Berger pleaded guilty, and was sentenced for removing the documents.
More than a year later?
I rest my case.

Posted by: consider wisely always on December 22, 2006 at 6:44 AM | PERMALINK

The right wing would welcome a distracting focus on Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger.

They have their own "All the President's Men" situation with the I. "Scooter" Libby indictment and RAPIDLY upcoming trial. He, of course, from the vice president's inner circle.

As we know, Libby was one of several founding members of Project for A New American Century, along with the vice president, the hawkmeister hardliners pushing for war with Iraq back in 1997....well before nine-one-one, well before dubya ignored the briefing " bin ladin determinined to strike within the U.S."

Harshly punishing Ambassador Joseph Wilson for disagreeing with the inner circle's bogus push for war by disclosing his wife's identity as a CIA agent, and the administration's successful deception of America for a war that caused innumerable deaths/unspeakable destruction, seem far more unethical than what Sandy Berger has wrought...
Wouldn't you say?

But the right wing would prefer a different media focus

Posted by: consider wisely always on December 22, 2006 at 9:05 AM | PERMALINK

I wouldn't say anything, CWA, because I don't know what Berger destroyed. If one, such as you, prefers to make contentions while in a state of ignorance, then one can say just about anything. Congratulations.

Posted by: Will Allen on December 22, 2006 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

Will Allen: Didn't Mr. Berger have his day in court? He received a criminal sentence, after all.
I made no comment on the nature of the documents he copied or may have stashed.
Why the hostility with my opinion of the timing of the release of the report by the inspector who looked into Berger's case?

Posted by: consider wisely always on December 22, 2006 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

cwa, you asked a question regarding what actions were more unethical. Since we do not the precise nature of Berger's actions, the question cannot be answered, unless one wishes to do so from a state of ignorance. Clear enough now?

Posted by: Will Allen on December 22, 2006 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

"do not know the precise nature of..."

Posted by: Will Allen on December 22, 2006 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

You seem to have a strong need to get the last word.

Posted by: consider wisely, next time on December 22, 2006 at 10:28 PM | PERMALINK

cwa, why would ask a question, if you did not expect an answer?

Posted by: Will Allen on December 23, 2006 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

Harshly punishing Ambassador Joseph Wilson for disagreeing with the inner circle's bogus push for war by disclosing his wife's identity as a CIA agent,

Joe's harshest punishment came from the Washington Post in mocking him repeatedly including a Sunday Editorial devoted specifically toward mocking him in the most visible and direct way available. The outing of a CIA desk jockey is hardly punishment and we now know she was outed long before Scooter said anything and by her own husband.

The reason why this trial is going to be so much fun is Libby's defense is being fully finded by people who want to humiliate Joe, the Washington Post for their awful coverage, the NYTs, ABC, Fitz and everyone associated with the prosecution.

Joe is going to be sitting on the witness stand sweating bullets when asked how many people he leaked Val's occupation too and how often he lied. This credibility had been shattered. Now he either prejures himself or he testifies the mocking was well earned.

Think back to Slick Willie and Monica. He knew when Starr's team was under oath they knew about Monica and others. But he didn't know how much they could prove. He had to choose between coming clean and being immediately embarrased or hope they didn't have the proof, lying, and risking disbarment and impeachment. He had about 10 minutes to make his decision and he made the wrong decision.

Big Joe, as the Washington Post has noted, has been lying through his teeth all along. He's going to be under oath. It's one thing to lie to liberals. As Slick Willie learned, it's quite another to lie under oath. Joe's book selling days are over. Val's book was never sold and won't be. They're do well on the liberal conspiracy theory circuit of course but the MSM was remain was far away as possible hoping no one remembers they ever took Joe seriously.

Posted by: rdw on December 23, 2006 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

Mike "last word" Allen: You originally chastised me by saying Oh yeah, those sinister Republicans conspired...to have the guy steal documents to create a red herring.
This is way off the mark. And you know it.
My original post on the matter says a Sandy Berger story AT THIS POINT is the definitive red herring.
AT THIS POINT is the key to my post: related to the MORE THAN A YEAR LATER,
the inspector releases the report, right as the republican's big- problem -Vice President's Office's Scooter Libby- obstruction trial is about to begin, by releasing the Berger report again putting in the news cycle that Berger was convicted, sentenced, disgraced--more than a year ago!!!!!!!!!!!!
I explained that in a subsequent post.
Now you want to play the game known to psychologists as "now I gotcha, you son of a gun!"

Posted by: consider wisely lastly on December 23, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

cwa, without knowledge of the facts, it is fatuous to speak of anything as being "definitive". Do you know what "definitive" means?

Posted by: Will Allen on December 23, 2006 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly