He put docs in his socks.....

The left wing media has missed this.... why?

The Current Crisis
Berger Again
By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
Published 1/11/2007 12:08:16 AM
WASHINGTON -- While reviewing national security documents from the Clinton Administration in preparation for his appearance before the 9/11 Commission hearings, the Clinton administration's former national security adviser, Mr. Samuel R. Berger, was observed stuffing them in his socks by employees at the National Archives. Soon he was accused of taking these documents -- memos, draft documents, e-mails, that sort of thing -- from the Archives in breach of the law, and he was duly charged. All of this took place a couple of years ago, and those of us who had followed the Clinton high jinks with more diligence than the rest of the press had a good laugh. Once again we were vindicated and the rest of the press went into another episode of disappointment. As throughout the 1990s, the Best and the Brightest of the Clinton Saga had been caught flagrante delicto -- and let me add flagrante hilarious. Berger really did pack the documents in his socks.
Yet there was a debate among us Clinton sleuths that now has been settled. After Berger pleaded guilty, many of us accepted his explanation, namely, that he was simply too lazy to read through all the material in the uncomfortable quarters made available to him at the Archives. He wanted to read them at home in the presence of loved ones, the family cat, and Fleetwood Mac on the sound system. He had grimmer critics with a darker reading. They believed that in the aftermath of 9/11 historians were going to be more exacting in their readings of the Clinton record on terror and if White House documents showed laxity the historians would report it. Thus these Clinton sleuths argued that Berger was making off with embarrassing documents to destroy or perhaps to revise.

We moderates said nonsense. That would be a brazen breach of ethics. Moreover, it would be very risky. Surely the Archives would not let Berger see original documents or documents that had not yet been catalogued. Anything he stole or disfigured would have a backup document. How naive we were. Thanks to a Congressional report released this week, we now know that Berger was allowed to look over (and quite likely filch) files of materials from the Clinton administration that had yet to be archived and were very germane to how historians will judge him and his boss.

According to the Washington Post, the Congressional report "said Berger took a special interest during his early visits [to the Archives] in files from the office of former White House counterterrorism official Richard A. Clarke, which included uninventoried draft documents, memos, e-mail messages and hand-written notes." "Had Berger removed papers," the report notes, "...it would be almost impossible for Archives staff to know."

In other words, the National Archives blundered badly when it gave Berger access to documents that were unrecorded and uncopied. Berger, an admitted liar, has almost certainly lied about what he did with these documents. And historians will probably never know what notations they contained or even if they contained major revelations about the Clinton administration's assessment and treatment of terrorists in the years before 9/11.

What we do know is that the Clinton sleuths now have still more evidence of the Clinton administration's abuse of power and fundamental lawlessness. The administration's public record is replete with the Clintons' obstructing investigations by withholding documents. Just recall Hillary's subpoenaed billing records from the Rose Law Firm that were kept for months from the Independent Counsel before they appeared magically in her living quarters. Or remember when her aides illegally entered the just deceased Vince Foster's White House office to carry off materials that only law enforcement officials should have seen.

The Democrats now repine over a Republican "Culture of Corruption." Well, it did not start with the Republicans. I can find no historic parallel for what Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser Berger did at the National Archives, and he got off with a misdemeanor. From this week's Congressional Report it appears to me that he stole documents, possibly destroyed them, and apparently corrupted Archives officials and officials in the Justice Department. Cultures of corruption have a way of spreading. When I read of Senator Hillary Clinton's run for the White House I wonder, do the Democrats want to go through this degraded debate all over again?


R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator, a contributing editor to the New York Sun, and an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute. His most recent book is Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House (Regnery Publishing).


you dumb libs missed this why?

You Libs and the left leaning media dont say shit.......

why would he steal docs? Clinton got somthing to hide?

if this was a republican...it would be DOC GATE.......


everyone say DOUBLE STANDARD......

you dumb libs missed this why?
__________________
I have found that when a person resorts to name calling, he basically has nothing of substance to say, To prove your own ignorance is to label others ignorant. By calling people Idiots and fags, you are setting yourself up for a mirror like image. Most of us grew out of this juvenile behavior in grade school, but feel free to exercise your free speech priveledges. Just be aware that you are not doing yourself or anyone else on this site any good by name calling. It only promotes anger and hatred and clouds the real nexus of the discussion!

Med the whole left leaning media swept it under the rug..... WHY?


Cause the have an agenda?

could you imagine that if it was a repub?

im serious DOC GATE... front page all the papers ( most are left leaning)

OK, I'll be happy to submit to an IQ test to anyone who wants to characterize me as a "dumb" lib. That is a standing offer for anyone who can only characterize people with opposing viewpoints as dumb. Prepare to have your hair blown back by the test scores, by the way.

As far as the Sandy Berger-hiding-documents story, that's not been swept under the rug at all. I've read about it four times. Heard it on news magazine shows twice. Heard it twice on Sunday public affairs programming, too. It's not hidden news. It's a fairly well-known story, although the detail about socks is a new twist to it. You've gotta start reading more. . . .

So you are saying that there is no double standard...in the media

what if it was a republican?

check for spelling and grammer errors.....




I aint no literate ya Know....



what was he Taking them? why would he take it? why does he have a securtity clearance again......all good questions that will never be asked.

I edited this because these threads are too stupid to waste my time on

you can be smart and hurt friends in Public, witch makes you very dumb....


Listen BG... praise in public, punish in private.......Im too dumb right????


I aint no literate..................right?

Why ask questions? Maybe he wants to know something. Classifying libs as dumb is fucked up and ignorant. If you want this stuff to be brought up then you should do it. Most people don't accept there faults, libs are not different. People make mistakes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta9 UK

I edited this because these threads are too stupid to waste my time on

---

you dont have an argument is what you ment to say.....

what about the double standard?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bong30

you can be smart and hurt friends in Public, witch makes you very dumb....


Listen BG... praise in public, punish in private.......Im too dumb right????


I aint no literate..................right?

---

You need to read what I wrote on that other thread where the subject of your literacy came up. I told you, again, that I wasn't punishing. But you can choose to see it that way if you want to, and I gather you do. That tells me a lot about you, believe it or not.

And by the way, if you suggest the praise-in-public/punish-in-private approach, why is it that you dish out so many insults around here? Seriously, that contradiction is a troubling one.

As far as the media double-standard is concerned, I don't know what I think on that. I've read a couple of books that do make me think there's left bias, but then I see Fox and read US News and World Report and other publications, and I see a complete right bias. I think it depends on the news source and also on who's doing the asking. Most arch-conservatives spend a lot of time yelling about "liberal media" and yet hardly ever read actual legitimate news magazines or papers, so it's hard to deem them as having a fair or balanced opinion. This is why folks need exposure to a good many news sources so they can balance each other out.

Prasie in public punish in private is for friends...people you care about


I dont care about those Idiots..... I care about you.


YOU READ IT AGAIN.....


If someone said BG is a big bitch..... and I said yes

I mine as well of said it...right?

so when lucky idiot...said his shit and you agreed, you mine as well of said it.


you have done it before.... I bit my tounge.... i can only take so much.

But I didn't say yes. That's the deal. I simply quoted him, which I've now apologized for and wish you could hear my sincerity on. I do see your point, however, and like I said, I regret even repeating that word. You ever have dark nights where the ugliness just pushes you over the edge? Last night when I repeated that was one of those nights for me, and I was reacting with disgust to the deep-seated ugliness that had already been spewed all over that thread. You, by the way, were the Spewer in Chief, as you're well aware.

Today I'm not so mired down with grief, and that's why I especially regret my repetition of that word so much. Trust me, if I were punishing you, which I don't intend to do, I would do that in private.

By the way, there are plenty of people who think I'm a bitch. Including you, right now. I'm a grownup. I know I'm not going to make everyone happy all of the time, so mostly I try and take the most courteous option when I can. I don't always succeed. I'm not perfect. But at least I try.

Do you?

I try.....for you

I accept your appoligy, and love you

(






























) that Much

me holding my hands far apart.....................

Im sorry too.....I know Im agro... that is just me.

XOXO

I love you, too, my friend (and political enemy). THIS much (hands way apart, too, and I have a heck of a wingspan).

Oh, heck, a Chihuahua just jumped in my lap and is interrupting my wingspan. So basically, my measure of affection looks like this in the middle now . . . Her face just adds to the sincerity, right???

What a baby dog!!! Give lil' one a treat from Uncle Psycho.:D

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

She has eaten a treat in your honor--and another in Bong's. And now she's licking her lips and looking at me with those eyes, and the last thing she needs is another treat. . . . but how can I resist that face?

My wife wants a Chihuahua now i showed her yours....

we have a big boxer, and i would be like that looney cartoons with the big dumb dog and we will put a sweater and a little hat on the chihuahua.....

what do you say boss?

ahhhh SHUT UP>>>>>>...!!!!!!

Puppy fun........

My big dam dog...is so stupid he inhales his food... doesnt even chew it..... just sucks it down, and spits it up.....LOL

But i love him....

Look at that face!!! He's wonderful! I can see what you love in him. He has true dog character.

So about how much chow does a dog like that put away in a day? Mine eats about a 2/3 of a cup a day, but she's supposed to be on a diet. I'm just curious about the input volume on a larger dog.

Hey! If y'all ever did get a Chihuahua, you'd probably be surprised how bossy and in-charge they are. My cousins all refer to Daisy (my dog) as The Sarge because she appoints herself the boss of everyone, including Great Danes, the minute she enters a place where there are multiple dogs. I guess they feel they have to get their bluff out because they're small. But it makes no sense. At Christmas at my aunt's, she had a 145-pound Great Dane totally intimidated, and he did exactly what she told him he needed to do. It was hysterical!

Wonder what you'd get crossing a right wing Boxer with a left wing Chihuahua. Might just look like Hillary Clinton.:D

Give em' both another treat for me and say sorry!!!:rasta:

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

BG he is a horse.. hes is an 85 lbs boxer most are 65-70ish

thats what we were thinking....get a little dog that thinks its big....

Keep the boxer in place......


he eats like a 20lbs pound bag every couple weeks......we just pour it into a huge trash can with a lid, and give him a big gulp cup full 1-2 times a day.....

then the kids feed him...LOL


Soccer anyone? if you can get the ball from him, have at it.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Wonder what you'd get crossing a right wing Boxer with a left wing Chihuahua. Might just look like Hillary Clinton.:D

Give em' both another treat for me and say sorry!!!:rasta:

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

---

If i had a dog with a face like hillary i would shave his butt.........LOL

Our dogs are cuter than hillary........LOL

she is more like a hairless crested....

Right wing boxer..................LOL

Left wing chihuahua............LOL

I think the result between a right-wing boxer and a left-wing Chihuahua would be cuter than Hillary. It'd pretty much have to be! But its political stance would be frighteningly similar. . . .

I can't imagine a dog eating that much food! But I love the idea of one that loves to play soccer. Mine can't even grasp a tennis ball in their mouths. What they really like to play with is little stuffed animal dog toys, preferably floppy ones. And they adore toy mice that are intended for the cats.

Seriously, if y'all ever do think about a little doglet to go with your boxer, it's true Chihuahuas have a big-dog attitude. But they are very cold-natured dogs. I guess it's their Mexican heritage. They shiver if the temperature gets into the 50s or below, and they aren't exactly cooperative about going outside to use the bathroom if it's even remotely chilly. You can train them to use wee-wee pads, but those things are expensive. I was trying to imagine my dogs in Colorado in three feet of snow. They'd simply stage a sit-in and mess all over the house. Just something to think about before bringing home a little tropical doggie to the mile-high (cold) city. . . .

Good advice....BG it was like 5 below zero last night.

mybey they have a thick coated version????

Plamer, my Boxer has thie thinest hair, little copper hair. its funny where he is copper hair he is black...where he has white hair he is white......

he doesnt shiver i think cause he is so big and make a ton of heat....Ie all the food.

Back on subject....

Why Does Trousergate Go Ignored?
INVESTOR'S BUSIENSS DAILY

Posted 1/11/2007

Scandal: A House Oversight Committee report details the real and potential damage to national security of Sandy Berger's theft and destruction of classified documents. And we may never know what was in them.

The report released this week by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee shows, as ranking Republican member Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia put it, how former Clinton National Security Adviser Berger "compromised national security much more than originally disclosed."

The conventional wisdom is that Berger took and tried to destroy four documents. Fact is, we don't know all Berger took and all he destroyed.

As Davis points out, "Working papers of National Security Council staff members are not inventoried by the Archives. Consequently, there is no way to ever know if the 9/11 Commission received all required materials."

We've reported how Berger surreptitiously stole classified documents from the National Archives pertaining to the run-up to 9/11 and the Clinton administration's handling of earlier terror threats. Berger was found not to have removed documents accidentally, but to have taken them deliberately, hiding them under a construction trailer for later retrieval, then cutting some with scissors.

Berger, while reviewing documents, would take frequent bathroom breaks. On one occasion, personnel noticed an unknown white object beneath his pant leg. A witness said Berger "bent down, fiddling with something white, which could have been papers, around his ankle." No Archives official did or said anything.
As a report by the Archives' inspector general noted, "He headed toward a construction area . . . looked up and down the street, up into the windows of the Archives and the DoJ (Department of Justice), and did not see anyone." He then slid the papers under the trailer. But he took more breaks than four documents or normal biology required.

The Berger team has maintained that: OK, it looks bad, but all documents had been submitted to the 9/11 Commission, and in any event copies of the documents still existed. OK, then, why cut them up and destroy them? Maybe because Berger wasn't as interested in the reports themselves but in comments certain recipients may have made on the copies he destroyed.

The 9/11 Commission was naturally curious about how the Clinton administration handled prior terror threats and what it knew, and when, about potential threats. So, it asked Berger to testify. Clinton, we know now, signed a letter authorizing Berger's access to classified documents in the Archives as preparation for his testimony.

A report by the National Archives and Records Administration says Clinton signed an April 12, 2002, letter designating Berger, and another individual whose name was redacted, as "agents on his behalf to review relevant NSC documents regarding Osama bin Laden/al-Qaida, Sudan and presidential correspondence from or to (Sudanese President) Omar Bashir, contained in the Clinton presidential records."

According to the NARA report, a subsequent letter from a National Security Council official dated May 14, 2002, said Berger was repeatedly briefed that "he was not allowed to remove any documentation from NARA." But he did. Now we know that we don't know how many documents he may actually have taken and what was in or on them.

The "Archives staff's failure to contact law enforcement immediately and their contacts with Mr. Berger about the missing documents compromised the law enforcement effort," said Rep. Davis. Because Berger "had access to original documents that he could have taken without detection," he added, "we do not know if anything was lost to the public or the process."

No one in the mainstream media seems to care.



^^^ seams to be what bong30 said^^^^^

No one in the mainstream media seems to care.

I remember reading this on CNN when it first happened. But like many things in the media, it gets swept under the rug.

Speaking as a former newspaper reporter, I think the reason people assume that no one cares or that the media isn't paying it enough heed is that it's old news. This story was reported widely when it first came out, but news is news, and fresh news takes the place of old. That's the way that works. Old headlines aren't news even after a few days, much less a few years.

You would at least think they would give follow ups. Trying to find out how many signatures they got going on Amadidajad's impeachment is like pulling teeth.

Bong why hasn't the "right" brought this up? Could it be that Clinton was right about "he got closer to catching bin laden than bush" comment?

The right is...

I got back on it when I herd a talk show host was doing satire on it.

it was funny people are making new words to old songs..listen to some they are funny.

http://www.bennettmornings.com/pg/js...lzdFNpemU9Mg==


Bill Bennetts morining in america........ great radio show

here is more information on him.....

Biography



William J. Bennett
Host of "Bill Bennett's Morning in America" show.

William J. Bennett is one of America's most important, influential and respected voices on cultural, political, and education issues. A native of Brooklyn, New York, Bill Bennett studied philosophy at Williams College (B.A.) and the University of Texas (Ph.D.) and earned a law degree from Harvard. He is the Washington Fellow of the Claremont Institute, & a CNN Contributor. He is also the chairman of Americans for Victory over Terrorism, a project dedicated to sustaining and strengthening public opinion as the war on terrorism moves forward.

Dr. Bennett is the host of a nationally broadcast radio show from 6:00-9:00 a.m. (EST): Bill Bennett's Morning in America.

During the 1980s, Dr. Bennett emerged as one of the nation's most prominent political figures. He served as President Reagan's chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities (1981-1985) and Secretary of Education (1985-1988), and President Bush's "drug czar" (1989-1990). In his various roles, he was perceived -- even by his adversaries -- as a man of strong, reasoned convictions who spoke candidly, eloquently, and honestly about some of the most important issues of our time.

Dr. Bennett is currently completing a two-volume history of the United States, entitled "America: The Last Best Hope," volume I of which will be released in May 2006. Bill Bennett has accomplished a rare feat: since leaving government, he has achieved an even greater impact on our national political debate. Dr. Bennett has written for America's leading newspapers and magazines and appeared on the nation's most influential television shows. He has also written and edited 16 books, two of which -- The Book of Virtues and The Children's Book of Virtues -- rank among the most successful of the past decade. The Book of Virtues has been made into an animated series that airs on PBS in the United States and Great Britain and has been seen in over 65 countries. Dr. Bennett was named by focus groups and leading analysts the "Best Communicator of 2002," the most well-received public commentator on the issues of "pride, patriotism, faith, and moral conviction." In April of 2005, the Sunday New York Times named Dr. Bennett the "leading spokesman of the Traditional Values wing of the Republican Party."

Although he is a well-known Republican, Dr. Bennett often has crossed party lines in order to pursue important common purposes. He has worked closely with Democratic leaders to fight the decline of popular culture and to end worldwide religious persecution, and he is the co-chairman of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America with former New York Governor Mario Cuomo.

Thanks to his writings and speeches, William Bennett has extraordinary influence on America's political and social landscape. He, his wife Elayne, and their two sons live in Maryland.

I rather like Bill Bennett myself, despite the fact that our politics don't agree most of the time. He's intelligent and forward-thinking, especially for a conservative. Many mainstream conservatives, particularly the religious right, don't approve of him anymore because of his penchant for gambling that came out a few years back. He apparently was a fairly high roller in the casinos. I've seen spin that's said the liberal left were the ones who made a big deal of that, but the truth is the religious right has done a far more brutal job of shunning and dissing him since the gambling history began making headlines.

BG you should have herd (its on his site) Him, and his wife singing....

sandy bring me some docs....or something, its funny and Mrs. Bennett has a wonderful voice....

People think i listen to Rush and people like that...Bill is more My style....