I don’t presume to have any understanding of Sandy Berger’s motives.

I’ve never met him. I’ve never been to the NSA. I don’t know what is contained within the documents. I’m not a witness to the case. I wasn’t present when the investigations took place.

So, MKR, you are defending Sandy Berger for purely partisan reasons. It doesn’t matter if what Berger did was right or wrong, he’s a Dem and you are going to make sure you stick up for him, no matter what. Somewhere in your heart, you want to believe that the evil GOP machine is to blame for all of it – they set him up.

MKR on January 30, 2007 at 3:53 AM

Umm, you’re asking me about jobs and sleep??

Also, MKR, do us all a favor and go all the way back to the top of the comments on this thread – more specifically, when you decided to join in, and see for yourself if your arguments make sense. I think you will begin to notice a pattern, like talking out of both sides of your mouth. I meant to point this out to you on another thread about a week ago (or so), but didn’t have time (because yes, I do have a job). MKR, you argue just for arguments sake. Talk about jumping around. Also, what’s why are you fighting tooth and nail for Sandy Berger?? Even the rest of the Hot Air libs don’t bother with this guy.

So let me get this correct MKR, Mr. Berger stole documents and hid them or disposed of them under a construction trailer because he was a klepto or it is a hobby?

Other than my post above, I’ve made no remarks whatsoever regarding why Sandy Berger took the actions he did.

You are debating and defending someone who broke national security laws

By quoting his Republican appointed prosecutor?

Was the prosecution also the defense?

kind of like saying the bank robber only stole money from the people who didn’t need it, so leave him alone.

Utterly illogical strawman argument.

Regardless, you think Mr. Berger is an upstanding citizen, and you are proud of him representing the Democratic party.

There wasn’t one bit of your message worth responding to, but I’m bored and I have time to kill.

Let’s forget about your trivial arguments for a minute, and focus on the inexplainable actions of Berger.

Righto.

Forget about whether the docs were originals or printouts, had handwritten notes or didn’t have them.

Got it.

How do YOU explain his odd behavior of stashing documents in his shorts and socks, rather than putting them in his attache and leaving like an innocent person would? That’s a giant red flag comrade, and you know it.

So he chose to hide the documents because ………..?

I don’t presume to have any understanding of Sandy Berger’s motives.

I’ve never met him. I’ve never been to the NSA. I don’t know what is contained within the documents. I’m not a witness to the case. I wasn’t present when the investigations took place.

So, in all honesty, how would *I* know what he did and why he did it unless the media made that judgement for me?

And how does the media’s version of events sit when the Republican appointed lead prosecutor largely refutes it?

Well, allow me to retort.

Uh huh, I couldn’t find anything about the handwritten notes in your retort that form the basis of the argument that Sandy Berger removed “original documents” (you did read what you were replying to, yes?)

Did Sandy Berger, by his own admission, remove documents with hand written notes on them, as alleged above?

If you’re going to quote the Wall Street Journal, you might one to quote an article that isn’t 2 years old when there is one on the same topic 2 weeks old.

Yeah, f*$k those flip floppers. I knew there was a reason I normally steered clear of them.

Or you could just read the words of Tom Davis, the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee

Excuse me, the what?

If there is one thing Tom Davis is known for, it’s not oversight.

on the release of his staff investigation into Berger’s activities.

“The public statements of the former chief of the public integrity section, Noel Hillman, were incomplete and misleading. Because Mr. Berger had access to original documents that he could have taken without detection, we do not know if anything ‘was lost to the public or the process.’

misleading and incomplete. That’s Washington speak for he lied. Yes indeed, the committee said the guy in the WSJ article you quoted was lying.

We do not know. That’s English speak for “we do not know”, no matter what you choose to wrap around it, and that’s the best argument coming from the former chairman who apparently found very little to investigate during his time.

Here, read the whole thing. No Rush Limbaugh or Shawn Hannity included.

I would think this would interest a curious person like yourself.

Thankyou for the link, though I had already read it.

I, for one, am amazed that the Tom Davis do-nothing House Government Reform Committee woke from thier slumber just in time to get this report out before they became the minority.

Poof – MKR is gone after things got very uncomfortable.

Do you sleep?

Do you have a job?

Aside from the fact that it’s odd how desperate you are to defend Berger here

Incorrect. You routinely make assumptions and pass them off as fact, and every now and then I feel like challenging them.

I really couldn’t care less about Sandy Berger.

For yet another example of your being a dishonest turd (as an example for why I’m not going to waste my time with you) I made the claim that the former PM of Niger said that Saddam did seek to buy Uranium from him, you replied:

No, he didn’t confirm that at all.

But even if he did, I don’t care. I’m specifically talking about the forged yellowcake documents, which are proven forgeries.

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

You might want to read the very article you have chosen to use as your source and then very carefully examine your original comment and my objection to it.

You said that the Prime Minister CONFIRMED the position that Iraq had sought yellowcake uranium from Niger.

Now, did he really CONFIRM what you say he CONFIRMED? Did discussions involving the sale of yellowcake uranium take place, and if so, how did Ibrahim handle the subject of a uranium trade proposal with a country under the thumb of stiff U.N. sanctions?

I haven’t checked a thesaurus for a while but I’m fairly certain that ASSUME is not a synonym for CONFIRM.

Now, again, I’m not sure what any of this has to do with Sandy Berger…

It has absolutely nothing to do with Sandy Berger, and everything to do with your curiosity when it comes to documents and unanswered questions. YOU were the one that started prattling about the State Of The Union speech and all matters concerned with the Niger affair other than the forged documents I referred to.

I have to chuckle over your remark about how desperate I am to defend Berger. Look at your explosive defense of George W. Bush at the mere mention of forged documents.

And by the way, we hate to pull the strawman out on you but liberals are very predictable because you all operate from a pretty similar playbook, spouting the same BS year after year, and what we try to do is preempt your ridiculous and predictable arguments before you make them to save everyone time. It’s not that we’re trying to put words in your mouth. It’s that because you’re a liberal, you’re predictable and we already know what those words are going to be.

So you’ve CONFIRMED that I am a liberal, have you?

Can you oppose this administration and not be liberal?

Not once have I offered or have been asked for my opinions on liberal philosophies, so I am finding it difficult to understand how you have objectively reached this conclusion.

If you’re game, why don’t you hit me with five questions on liberal philosophy and see where I really stand, as opposed to dishing out trademark slurs as a substitute for substance.

I’ll bet you won’t because you know you’ll probably have to let go of the only piece of ammunition, however misplaced, that you’ve got.

Now, back on topic… I noticed you linking to an Opinion Journal piece above… interesting, because it just so happens that Michelle Malkin is linking to one today:
http://opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009591

Prosecutors accepted Mr. Berger’s assurance that he had taken only five documents from the archives, …

WSJ flip-flop aside, here’s another version of the “he must have done it because we don’t know if he did or didn’t” allegation:

http://www.vanceholmes.com/court/mark_foley_kids.jpg

Mark Foley sexually interfered with those two kids. CONFIRMED FACT.

Oh, I just figured out why you and your breed don’t think the Berger situation was a big deal… It was buried in YOUR papers:

I don’t read the New York Times and I don’t read the Washington Post. You didn’t ask, but I feel inclined to tell you: I watch FOX News and read a Murdoch newspaper daily.

No wonder I am serially uninformed, eh?

The Inspector General’s report found that the papers Mr. Berger took outlined the adequacy of the government’s knowledge of terrorist threats …

I don’t think I need to go on.

Well, if you’re not interested in debating that issue you might want to explain why, if what you believe is correct, the Republican administered Department of Justice for all intents and purposes appears to the average punter as either a) tragically incompetent, or b) purposely lax in the investigation of a high profile federal crime.

Thankyou, come again.

MKR on January 29, 2007 at 4:07 AM

Troll, doesn’t your ass get tired?

For yet another example of your being a dishonest turd (as an example for why I’m not going to waste my time with you) I made the claim that the former PM of Niger said that Saddam did seek to buy Uranium from him, you replied:

No, he didn’t confirm that at all.

But even if he did, I don’t care. I’m specifically talking about the forged yellowcake documents, which are proven forgeries.

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

Now, again, I’m not sure what any of this has to do with Sandy Berger… And by the way, we hate to pull the strawman out on you, but liberals are very predictable because you all operate from a pretty similar playbook, spouting the same BS year after year, and what we try to do is preempt your ridiculous and predictable arguments before you make them to save everyone time. It’s not that we’re trying to put words in your mouth. It’s that because you’re a liberal, you’re predictable and we already know what those words are going to be.

Now, back on topic… I noticed you linking to an Opinion Journal piece above… interesting, because it just so happens that Michelle Malkin is linking to one today:
http://opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009591

Prosecutors accepted Mr. Berger’s assurance that he had taken only five documents from the archives, even though on three of his four visits there he had access to original working papers of the National Security Council for which no adequate inventory exists. Nancy Smith, the archives official who provided the materials to Mr. Berger, said that she would “never know what if any original documents were missing.” We have only Mr. Berger’s word that he didn’t take anything else. The Justice Department secured his agreement to take a polygraph on the matter, but never followed through and administered it.

And again, why go through all of the following for “print outs”?

The issue is still relevant. Officials of the 9/11 Commission are now on record expressing “grave concern” about the materials to which Mr. Berger had access. A report from the National Archives Inspector General last month found he took extraordinary measures to spirit them out of the archives, including hiding them in his pockets and socks. He also went outside without an escort and put some documents under a construction trailer, from where he could later retrieve them.

After archives staff became suspicious of Mr. Berger during his third visit, they numbered some of the documents he looked at. After he left, they reviewed the documents and noted that No. 217 was missing. The next time he came, the staff gave him another copy of 217 with the comment that it had been inadvertently not made available to him during his previous visit. Mr. Berger appropriated the same document again.

Oh, I just figured out why you and your breed don’t think the Berger situation was a big deal… It was buried in YOUR papers:

The Inspector General’s report found that the papers Mr. Berger took outlined the adequacy of the government’s knowledge of terrorist threats in the U.S. in the final months of the Clinton administration–documents that could have been of some interest to the 9/11 Commission, before which Mr. Berger was scheduled to testify. The Washington Post buried news of the Inspector General’s report on page 7; the New York Times dumped it on page 36.

Philip Zelikow and Daniel Marcus, respectively the executive director and general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, told Mr. Davis’s investigators that they were never told Mr. Berger had access to original classified documents for which no copies existed. Had he known, Mr. Zelikow says, he would had “grave concern.”

I don’t think I need to go on.

10 to 13 times the Clinton’s had the chance to kill bin hidin. Each time he chickened out. Then, like a traitor, he boasts on national TV that he tried and tried to kill UBL..’MORE than any one else’. What a bunch of lies. Thats about all he does more than anyone else…lies and more lies.

I don’t know why they didn’t bring up my favorite ‘don’t shoot’ moment. Bin Laden was in a tent with a prince, no doubt about this one, he was there. But the Saudi prince has a dad who is about to buy some F-16’s from the Clinton Admin for BILLIONS of dollars. So it came down to money. They didn’t want to upset a Saudi with BIG money by killing his kid who happens to be best tea buds with UBL.

So every time you here the Dems talk about reducing the deficit, remember they did this INSTEAD of killing the most wanted terrorist in the whole WORLD for all time. ( well maybe second to muhammed(pissbeuponhim)

Thanks willie, burgler, madam nobright.

OH YEAH, this was two years before 9/11, in 1999.

Hillary will not give this Admin. a millimeter.

Let’s forget about your trivial arguments for a minute, and focus on the inexplainable actions of Berger. Forget about whether the docs were originals or printouts, had handwritten notes or didn’t have them.

How do YOU explain his odd behavior of stashing documents in his shorts and socks, rather than putting them in his attache and leaving like an innocent person would? That’s a giant red flag comrade, and you know it.

Doh! Stole my thunder, fogw. Why is an intelligent individual, possibly a genius in my estimation, like MKR acting as an apologist for actions which clearly are in violation of some statute? It just boggles the mind. Thus was a noble mind o’erthrown. It is positively Shakespearean in its tragic proportions.

So, MKR, you were probably blasting the NYT for running the phone intercept program story, right?? Or was that not subverting national security?

BTW, are you using a laptop, or are there desktop computers in your study hall?

Prosecutors accepted Mr. Berger’s assurance that he had taken only five documents from the archives, even though on three of his four visits there he had access to original working papers of the National Security Council for which no adequate inventory exists. Nancy Smith, the archives official who provided the materials to Mr. Berger, said that she would “never know what if any original documents were missing.” We have only Mr. Berger’s word that he didn’t take anything else. The Justice Department secured his agreement to take a polygraph on the matter, but never followed through and administered it.

The issue is still relevant. Officials of the 9/11 Commission are now on record expressing “grave concern” about the materials to which Mr. Berger had access. A report from the National Archives Inspector General last month found he took extraordinary measures to spirit them out of the archives, including hiding them in his pockets and socks. He also went outside without an escort and put some documents under a construction trailer, from where he could later retrieve them.

Legit enough for you?

So it would seem you might be the ostrich here; and talking out your ass to boot.

I’ll be mortally stunned if you can debate the actual issue.
MKR on January 29, 2007 at 3:21 AM

So let me get this correct MKR, Mr. Berger stole documents and hid them or disposed of them under a construction trailer because he was a klepto or it is a hobby? You are debating and defending someone who broke national security laws, kind of like saying the bank robber only stole money from the people who didn’t need it, so leave him alone. Regardless, you think Mr. Berger is an upstanding citizen, and you are proud of him representing the Democratic party.

JackStraw on January 29, 2007 at 8:05 AM

Nice job JackStraw, MKR is a very good googler. But when presented with facts, that he so yearned for, he dissappeared. Facts to a liberal is like krptonite to superman, as Mr. Elder puts it.
Be sure to read that Wall Street Journal, you seem to like and respect their opinions.

Let’s forget about your trivial arguments for a minute, and focus on the inexplainable actions of Berger. Forget about whether the docs were originals or printouts, had handwritten notes or didn’t have them.

How do YOU explain his odd behavior of stashing documents in his shorts and socks, rather than putting them in his attache and leaving like an innocent person would? That’s a giant red flag comrade, and you know it.

So he chose to hide the documents because ………..?

MKR, Troll.

Viper1, Ostrich.

Neener neener neener. Look, I have two kids, aged 4 and 7 whose main hobby is talking to each other like this. I run down to the basement and log on to hotair.com to hear this crap? If I wanted this crap, I’d just go back upstairs.

There is no real substance or validity to your argument whatsoever.

Ooooooo, I’m dyin’!! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! You’re killing me! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Do it again.

Btw, can you imagine the sh*tstorm that would have erupted if Rove had been caught stuffing those documents in his pants? Although it would have been harder for Rove, since he has kojones.

The president has approved every snatch plan presented for our review.

No wonder Clinton went nuclear.

MKR, Troll.

Viper1, Ostrich.