"One certainly does not excuse the other, but Josh's "shocked, shocked!" routine about Republican shenanigans -- in contrast to his überparsing defenses of similar Democrat shenanigans -- is wearing a bit thin. "

It appears that the main thing Josh is "shocked" and appalled about -- as am I -- is not that people act with political motives in mind.

It's the utterly cynical way in which this adminstration uses its official and governmental power for purely partisan reasons.

Does anyone really believe, for instance, that retroactively classifying documents after they've been public is not political? That's using a national security resource -- the classification system -- for partisan gain.

[ http://tinyurl.com/3dzev Boston Globe story about retroactive classification. ]

Similarly, Ashcroft selectively declassified documents by Gorelick, merely for partisan gain. He placed these selectively declassified documents on the DOJ website, not on the RNC website.

Again, using the classification system and the resources of the DOJ for partisan gain.

In the Berger case, it's more like "regular" politics, but there's no doubt that someone is using a leak of an investigation for partisan cover.

I'm more concerened about the former instances than the Berger leak but at least present Marshall's argument as he stated it:

"The most obvious, and probably the only, explanation of this leak is that it is intended to distract attention from the release of the 9/11 report due later this week. That would be yet another example of this administration's common practice of using the levers of executive power (law enforcement, declassification, etc.) for partisan purposes."

Regular politics is regular politics. Using national security assets (like the identity of a CIA undercover operative, or the classification system) for partisan gain -- particularly during wartime -- is NOT regular politics and is despicable.

Keef

Republican David Gergen agrees with Josh:

http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/07200002aaa00bce.upi&Sys=rmmiller&Fid=NATIONAL&Type=News&Filter=National%20News

You really have no idea, Dan?
No wonder you're seriously considering voting Kerry.

Josh Marshall going into denial is perhaps the funniest part about all of this so far. He claims it's "almost inexplicable"? I suggest the contrary; The only way it's inexplicable is if you take on faith that Berger, and the rest of the Clinton Democrats have never dealt in "nefarious" activity, as he puts it.

We both know better, don't we? Berger particularly, has already had to do some serious dancing as regards the Sundanise offer of custody of BinLaden. And... what do you know... those are the missing documents.

I'm willing to give the Democrats exactly as much leeway as they gave THEiR opponants. And given the history of the lies and coverups of Democrats these last 20 years, and given what's riding on this, for everone involved, it's the only reasonable way to proceed.

Allow me to be the first to say this;

I want this guy Berger dragged up before the 9/11 commission, since this clearly is in their purvue. I want an independant council investitating this one.

What was in the missing documents? Who did it expose? How much did John Kerry know about this?

Would the info in those documents swing public opinion against the Democrats, and therefore was this theft an attempt to swing the election by less than honest means?

These are questions that need answers, and now. The American people have a right to know this stuff. The Democrats are hiding on this one.... etc.

Point of the above paragraph is, all we need to do is use the quotes of the Democrats table pounding trying to get an independant council going against Republicans, for every investigation they've mounted in the last 20 years, and change the names. It'd be interesting to see the resulting hot potato dance.

bithead wrote:

"What was in the missing documents? Who did it expose? How much did John Kerry know about this? "

They are copies. There are no original documents missing. All the info is available elsewhere.

Nice try.

Keef

I agree -- its bizarre and inexcusable. Also, there seems to be no reason to this. Josh may be right that political motives are present for leaking this, but the original act is still pretty stupid and inexplicable.

Incidentally, Instapundit goes off (and repeats) a rant about how the media was underplaying the story and how it would react if Condi was in a similar situation. Firstly, both CNN and MSNBC had it as one of their top stories today morning and had discussion sections on it, so it would be hard for anyone to claim the story was being underplayed. Secondly, Rice is a sitting NSC head, so it would be a more serious matter in her case.

Berger should resign in his role on Kerry's staff.

keef;

Actually, no. Only some of them were.
from CNN:

Sources said that among the documents Berger took were drafts of a Clinton administration "after-action" report on efforts to thwart the so-called "Millennium" plot, a suspected al Qaeda attack around the New Year's holiday in late 1999.

Note: "drafts"... not "copies of drafts."
The only people talking about 'copies' are Berger himself and his lawyers. But even there, clearly, orignals are involved. Example, from the WaTi:

"Lanny Breuer, one of Mr. Berger's attorneys, said his client has offered to cooperate fully with the investigation but has not been interviewed by the FBI or prosecutors. Mr. Breuer said his client thought he was looking at copies of the classified documents, not originals. "

Clearly, in this quote, Berger's lawyers are saying he had the originals and are claiming he didn't know he had them.

I fully expect we will find this is simple spin by Berger, and that he actually had his hands on the originals of some documents.

Again, I want an investigation. NOW.

Condi Rice walks out of a secure NSA reading room with top secret documents and you'd have 50 days of front page articles by the NY Times, LA Times, etc. Berger does this and you have an article on page 16?

By the way, the media isn't liberal, just vastly over represented by people that vote Dem.

The Post: "Berger inadvertently took copies of several versions of an after-action memo on the millennium bombing plot from the Archives last fall, said his attorney Lanny Breuer."

The NYT: "Still, his lawyers said, Mr. Berger saw only copies. "Nothing he saw was an original," Mr. Breuer said."

This is generally not something a lawyer would lie on as it's easily contradicted if not true.

Keef:

Does it bother you that the Abu Gharib pictures were probably leaked by one of the attorneys for one of the prison guards there in order to create conditions that would allow the guy to plead he was just following orders from higher ups? Or did our democracy, which is not generally in the business of condoning torture, benefit by general disemination of the knowledge?

I think we have an equivalent situation here. We have an ex- National Security Advisor engaging in peculiar conduct in the run-up to his testimony before the 9-11 commission. It raises an issue on whether the Commission got the full story on the Clinton part of the Osama saga. And that is something that is worth knowing when trying to evaluate whatever report they put out.

Also, everybody in Washington leaks. The motives behind the leaking don't have much to do with virtue, truth, justice, or the American Way. Get over the outrage that the Bush's have learned this uniquely noxious Washington skill.

Also understand Marshall's rhetorical tack here. He posits that someone in the administration must have leaked (without proof). He then places his supposition in a laundry list of actual Bush defalcations. Then he condemns the evil Bushies for engaging, yet again, in that behavior. And thus, supposition is converted into fact with which to bash the evil GOP.

Forget Condi Rice. The propper comparison would be james A. baker - an important Bush advisor now out of government.

Now let's restate the counterfactual: Suppose James Baker admitted to stealing and destroying national security documents critical of the Bush adminstration prior to their being examined by the 9/11 commission.

[Which is exactly what Berger has admitted.]

Minor back-of-the-second=section story or "Scnadal of the Year'?

And so, Aaron, you're willing to take those stories (both buried, deep inside the respective papers, below the fold) at face value, given the sources, as opposed to the actual quotes of Berger's lawyers?

Prediction: This fire ain't goin' out soon, Gang.

"Republican David Gergen agrees with Josh"

Nice try. Gergen hasn't been a Republican since he joined the Clinton administration.

Question: If this is all there is to this, just a few notes stuffed into his socks and some copies, why is it still being investigated? Bergen visited the Archives in OCTOBER. The warrant was served on his house in JANUARY. There is something else going on with this investigation. Wonder what it is?

'Suppose James Baker admitted to stealing and destroying national security documents critical of the Bush adminstration prior to their being examined by the 9/11 commission.

[Which is exactly what Berger has admitted.]'

a) Berger has admitted nothing of the sort. Its still unclear whether the documents were originals or not.
b) The Bush administration is in power, the Clinton admin is not. Naturally, the bush admin deserves more scrutiny
c) James Baker is very well known to be a Bush family confidant and operative since way back. That is unlike Berger, who has only a peripheral relationship to the Kerry camp.

And when I left home, CNN and MSNBC were carrying it as one of their top stories so the media wasn't exactly downplaying it.

Mr. Drezner, I don't necessarily disagree with your recent update to your original post concerning media bias. I often become tired of arguments that default to the "liberal media" position. The media is what the media is. But with the advent of blogs, my information horizon has expanded exponentially. I find that I can readily predict how a story will be placed, how it will be spun, what facts are highlighted and which ones ignored by the NY Times, LA Times, et al, just from knowing which political party will be harmed (i.e. Joe Wilson vs. 16 words - UN oil for food vs. Halliburton). That is the reason I mentioned that the MSM isn't necessarily liberal, just that they vote overwhelmingly Dem.

Also understand Marshall's rhetorical tack here. He posits that someone in the administration must have leaked (without proof). He then places his supposition in a laundry list of actual Bush defalcations. Then he condemns the evil Bushies for engaging, yet again, in that behavior. And thus, supposition is converted into fact with which to bash the evil GOP.

Another claim I've seen last night I posted on my own blog, but I'm unsure what to make of it, but I'll toss it out here for discussion:

Is this Hillary in action? Remember; Hillary wants to run for Presdent. If Kerry by some extremely bad luck for America, manages to get elected, Hillary can't run in '08, and will likely NEVER get a shot at the presidency. Can this be aimed at tarring Kerry with a conspiracy brush?

appalled moderate wrote:

"Does it bother you that the Abu Gharib pictures were probably leaked by one of the attorneys for one of the prison guards there in order to create conditions that would allow the guy to plead he was just following orders from higher ups?"

Again, you're not getting the distinction.

Lemme spell it out.

John Ashcroft, the Attorney General, selectively declassfied memoranda to embarass Jamie Gorelick.

He did this while serving as the Attorney General of the US, not the Atty Gen of the republican party.

He put these documents up on the Department of Justice website, not the RNC web site.

If you think it's ok for a government official to use the classification system -- which is intended for use by the US Government to protect state secrets -- to disparage politcal opponents, then no wonder you have no problem with it.

As for what somebody who isn't a government official does or doesn't do, that does not reflect on the actions of the government of the US.

Ashcroft's behavior does.

I can't believe people use the actions of private citizens to say "they do it too" when we're talking about the actions of people currently working at the highest levels of government using governmental power (classification, etc) for purely political purposes.

If you can't see the distinction then God help you.

Keef.

Ummm, Bithead? Please read what I wrote again.

Those were quotes from Berger's lawyer.

bithead wrote:

"But even there, clearly, orignals are involved. "

Well the 9/11 commission doesn't think any documents were made unavailable to it:

"Al Felzenberg, spokesman for the Sept. 11 commission, said Tuesday the Berger investigation will not impact the panel’s work in any way. The 10-member bipartisan panel releases its final report on Thursday.

“This is a matter between the government and an individual,” he said. “They were not our documents, and we believe we have access to all the materials we need to see to do our report.”

Maybe you can go bang on the commission's door and get them overheated about this.

Bithead wrote:

"Again, I want an investigation. NOW."

Well, there has been an investigation. Since October. So you got your wish.

Nice try at getting all hot and bothered over this, but it's obviously pretty small potatoes, as Gergen seems to think , too.

Keef

Could this be part of a stalled plea bargaining negotiation?

What if the DOJ wants Berger to cop to relatively low level but nonetheless embarassing charges, and Berger's been balking because he thinks he's too high profile to actually be charged at all.

Result:impasse.

This leak might have come from either side as way of saying "put up or shut up"

For Berger it could be his way of saying - 'charge me or let me off the hook - get me out of limbo'.

For the DOJ, it could be their way of saying "you shoulda took the deal' while starting to build the political case for what will be a fiercely opposed prosecution.

CNN has a detailed description of this issue suggesting that Berger took only copies.

Incidentally, Berger's role to the Kerry campaign seems quite minor -- he has no formal position at all. Still in an election year, any such association is fair game.

Well the 9/11 commission doesn't think any documents were made unavailable to it:

Demonstrate that you exist.
Be sure to use independantly verifyable examples.

More direct: And asuming that the documents were missing, how would they know what was in htose documents, to know if it was or was not of import to the work of the commission?

And both those arguments assume the commission has not been politically tainted.

Just for everyone's edification, the 'socks' part is being denied.

If that part of the story turns out to be a complete fabrication, that source should be burned.

I'll state out front that Berger shouldn't get away from this scot free. You just don't do something like this. I understand that there's leeway for prosecutors to decide whether to prosecute, so I'll leave that up to them. I don't think we'll be seeing Berger anywhere in the Kerry adminstration after this, however.

That aside, the sourcing of this story seems to be a pretty big deal to me. Coming the day before the 9/11 commission hearings regarding an investigation that's been going on for months, the political calculation seems pretty evident. Add to that the possible fabrication about Berger putting documents in his socks and the insinuation that the 9/11 commission was denied information as a result of this, and this looks pretty damn calculated. On the other hand, maybe Berger really did put stuff in his socks and maybe these were originals, not copies. I'm not going to make unequivocal statements at this point.

But, when Dennis Hastert starts saying things like "Did these documents detail simple negligence or did they contain something more sinister? Was this a bungled attempt to rewrite history and keep critical information from the 9/11 Commission and potentially put their report under a cloud?", I get pretty suspicious.

Aaron;

Yes, they were listed as quotes from one of his lawyers.

One of them.

What of the ones I quoted, which seemingly are in direct constradition? What of the idea that the onesyou quoted are from the farthest left 'mainstream' papers on the planet? Sorry, ina head to head credibility test, the NYTimes falls short.

Keef-

Gorelick should have resigned from the commission. Anyone that was directly involved with setting policy should not have been on the commission. It taints the commission's findings.

She should have been testifying.

And who cares what Gergen thinks? Is he directly involved with the investigation? No? That makes him irrelevant, unless you want a character witness.

'Is this Hillary in action? Remember; Hillary wants to run for Presdent. If Kerry by some extremely bad luck for America, manages to get elected, Hillary can't run in '08, and will likely NEVER get a shot at the presidency. Can this be aimed at tarring Kerry with a conspiracy brush?'

Yes, I get it completely. Hillary somehow managed to get Berger to agree to get his name and reputation seriously hurt, his career as a high-paid consultant damaged, and possibly facing a jail time. And what led Berger to do this ? Why, he's madly in love with Hillary. of course and wants to become her live-in-boytoy in the WHite House. Sheesh.

keef:

I guess I'd understand your outrage more if the incident you're talking about did not expose a conflict of interest that should have disqualified her from serving on the Commission. And the fact that what Ashcroft did was very public. In most administrations, that info would have come out as a leak at some inconvenient moment.

'More direct: And asuming that the documents were missing, how would they know what was in htose documents, to know if it was or was not of import to the work of the commission?'

They would know that documents were missing. They would have an idea of the topic. And since we know that drafts were missing, they should have the final copy of the memo.

'And both those arguments assume the commission has not been politically tainted.'

It has 50-50 Repubs and Demos. The chairman is a Republican. Other than the fact that they debunked wingnut theories about Iraq and Al Qaeda, why would it be politically tainted ?

Bithead -- they both referred to the same lawyer. One had a direct quote, one a paraphrase.

Now, are you accusing the NYT of making of direct quotes from Berger's lawyer?

Again, my suspicion is that there's been an attempt to muddy the waters here. On this sort of thing, I tend to trust the most recent stories more than the initial ones.

jont:

A reasonable response, but you're making the assumption he WOULD in fact be hurt, or see jail time. I'm not.

Think, man... In what recent scandal, has *any* major Clinton Democrat involved, even on the most serious charges, not eventually gotten of with a hand slap and little more?

As I've said, I don't know what to make of it, but I honestly don't think what yo've said defeats the possibility, sorry.

Re: Gorelick --- Remember that the policy she enunciated wasn't really her doing, it was policy that had been more or less dictated by a Federal Judge. And her involvement was minor enough that I would not call it grounds for recusal.

erq:

Having an idea of what's in the documents and having the exact wording are two altogether different thigs, particularly in this Clintonesue world of UberParse, as Dan puts it.

Arron:
Am I accusing the NYT of twisting the news?
Well, gee, Arron, what do YOU think?

And it's been proved, many times over... and in more than this.

CNN story here.

Bithead, take a deep breath and go read it.

I didn't say 'twisting the news', bithead. I said directly making up a quote. Are you accusing them of doing that or not?

It's not as if the NYT hasn't gotten quotes wrong before, after all. But, either make the accusation or don't.

Fascinating!

Keef's first reaction is to blame it all on the *EVIL BUSH ADMINISTRATION*

I think the timing issue has been answered-------Republican lawmakers are saying John Kerry possibly used some of this material in a speech.
Also a couple of other points--it doesn't really matter what the documents were. Why on earth was Berger allowed to take a portfolio in the room--any notes he made were still considered classified until they were gone over by security to remove any classified information. He was there at least 30 hours over 4 days he could have been taking all types of documents home and photocopying them (not saying he did but worse case scenario its certainly possible.)
I don't think we know for sure if anything is completely missing yet.
This is either arrogrance mixed with sloppiness or
an attempt to cover for something in the Clinton admin. Either way what he did is illegal.
Re Ashcroft and Gorelick----The American people had a right to know of Jamie Gorelicks apparent conflict of interest and the 911 commission was not going to tell us.

Blame me, I'm going down for the criminal activities of the Klinton administration and the Kerry Campaign.

Send food to my prison cell. Please.

'Republican lawmakers are saying John Kerry possibly used some of this material in a speech.'

Yes, I see it now.

1) Material was destroyed, and we don't know whats on it, but John Kerry used some of it, we know that.

2) Or -- material was highly classified, but we saw it because we're in COngress and Kerry used some of it in a speech (err, wjat do you mean, Kerry might have seen it when he was in Congress).

No, this is just Republican spin. Can't blame them, Berger did a stoopid thing. Dems would do the same if situation was reversed.

Re: Gorelick --- there was no conflict of interest at all -- this was essentially something mandated by a Federal JUdge.

jont:

Gorelick arguably went past what was required by the judge.

Hey, I'm all for the most intense possible legal scrutiny for anyone who uses classified information in inappropriate ways or compromises secure information. I've no problem with Berger getting put under the investigational rack. Granted, it would be nice if the same attention was paid to figuring out the truth behind the accusation that someone told Chalabi we could read Iranian intelligence wires and Chalabi subsequently told the Iranians, but I suppose that would be too much to ask. At least the Special Prosecutor is making progress on the Plame case, these many many months after the initial accusations arrived...

I'm all for a merciless grilling of every and any potential instance where classified information was misused. As they say: Bring It On.

BTW, AP is now reporting Berger is removing himself from the Kerry Campaign. This is appropriate and good.

If there are in fact individuals who told Robert Novak Plame was a CIA agent, or individuals who told Chalabi we could read Iranian intelligence, I'd like them to remove themselves, too. But I guess, again, that's too much to ask.

Erg, I'd be interesting in hearing what "wingnut theories about Iraq and Al Qaeda" the 9/11 commission has debunked.

Their finds said that there's no reason to believe the straw man argument of an Iraq-Al Qaeda for 9/11 in particular*.

But the commission HAS also said that there is a lot of evidence of connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda in general.

"Their finds said that there's no reason to believe the straw man argument of an Iraq-Al Qaeda for 9/11 in particular*."

Strawman ? We have people such as Hayes and Mylroie trumpeting this. We have people spending days trying to figure out whether Atta met an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague. We have Cheney asserting that several times. So it was not a strawman.

"But the commission HAS also said that there is a lot of evidence of connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda in general."

We'll have to wait for the final report to come out, but the fact is that the commission indicated that there were no significant and/or operational links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Of course, there are are occasional connections -- in the shadowy world of intelligence and counter-intelligence, it would be surprising if there were no connections at all. But there are is no evidence of any collaboration, or evidence of any joint planning, or of any example of Saddam providing WMDs or the like to Al Qaeda.

i don't get this. even if he was trying to exploit some of the info for kerry's gain, is there any reason that taking the original documents would be more effective than taking notes on them? i guess he could leak them to the press. but surely, even if they hadn't noticed the documents were missing before, they could check and find out who saw them last. and shouldn't he have known that they WOULD verify that everything got checked back in? this makes no sense to me unless (1) somehow, there was specific information that he knew wasn't contained in any other document (ie, so bush couldn't get the information) that berger thought would be helpful to kerry PLUS he thought no one would notice he had taken the originals or (2) it was just sloppiness. i'd vote for sloppiness since the other option doesn't make a lot of sense...

"CNN story here."

Clinton News Network protects Clinton appointee. Film at 11.

What's hilarious is to see those who were most voceriferous in asserting that the reason for leaking Plame ID doesn't matter - a crime's a crime, you know! - all of a sudden saying "oh, it was inadvertant, no big deal, only copies, blah, blah, blah..."

"Clinton News Network protects Clinton appointee"

Translation: I can't refute the straight news reporting, so I'm going to toss in an irrelavancy.

David Gergen just said on Aaron Brown that the documents were copies, also.

Just another data point.

As for Al, I don't see anyone in the thread saying that this doesn't matter. Most people are just correcting the record on factual issues.

No need to worry people. Jamie Gorelick is on this commission. She has no conflicts of interest whatsoever. Plus, the staff is directed by Philip Zelikow and he has no conflicts of interest whatsoever. You can trust the government and this commission to handle everything. You can now return to normalcy.

...pause...

Ok. Are the robots gone? They are? Ok, good.

In reality, Jamie Gorelick has all along been the Clinton plant on the commission. She couldn't possibly have a conflict of interest in this investigation. She was ONLY the Deputy Attorney General advising the CIA, the Department of Defense and the President on the legalities of getting Bin Laden, Al Qaida and other terrorists. And she never wrote a memo that placed National Security less important than FBI information sharing. Oh damn, she did do that. My bad.

In reality, Philip Zelikow has been a egregious placement for the position of Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission staff. You know, he was ONLY the person that handled the transition of duties and affairs from Clinton National Security Adivser Sandy Berger to Bush National Security adviser Condeleeza Rice. Why, what kind of conflict could he have in investigating the activities and focus of advisers Berger and Rice?

Does one assume that a conflict of interest may be related to the fact that Zelikow writes books? No bid deal. Lots of people write books. But what about people that co-author books of people they are investigating? Mr. Zelikow only wrote two books with Condeleeza Rice. Is it three books that one must co-author before someone raises a stink?

To add insult to injury Philip Zelikow doesn't merely write books; he also contributes to them. Like in the case of the book edited by Harvard uber Professor Joseph Nye's book "Why People Don't Trust the Government". Mr. Zelikow contributed an essay for the book.

Gee Golly Garsh, I'd scream like hell about how the government is covering its own ass leaving the big loser tag to the American People again if this whole story wasn't so f'n hilarious.

The hypocrasy is too funny for me to stop laughing and start screaming.

I'm not finished though.

Earlier I was chatting with the chaps over at Atrios. One reader chimed in that they were watching CNN and the anchor said the source of the "socks" information was the RNC. The reader said "The RNC is behind the 'socks' incidident". I said, "CNN uses Party National Committees as sources?".

Later someone suggested that the National Archives Archivist was the source of the Berger leak. Bush recently nominated Allen Weinstein to be the Chair Archivist of the National Archives. The Communist Party USA doesn't like this, The Nation Magazine doesn't like it either. One problem, Mr. Weinstein's hearing for nomination in on July 22, 2004. Whoops.

Then we have the 'timing' and 'Sandy is a patriot and would never do this' defense. Of course he's so patriotic he was called to testify before the Congressional Investigation of 'Chinagate', a criminal investigation mind you, while the active National Security Adviser. The White House tried to block it, but they couldn't avoid th e subpoena powers of the Congress. Apparently the committee never checked his socks or his pants.

I'm glad Berger resigned for the advisory position to Kerry. My question though is why didn't he resign sooner? He knew he was under investigation. He knew he had 'knowingly' and 'inadvertantly' removed classified information from a 'Secure Room', ie 'arms in the air I will shoot you if you don't obey' Secure Room. Assuming Berger did tell the Kerry campaign about the investigation, how long did Kerry know that he had someone under criminal investigation advising him? Call me crazy, but weren't there many a bureaucrat, watchdog and other anti-corporate crusaders calling for executives under investigation to separate themselves from all professional matters such as NGO directors' roles, Corporate Board memberships, non-profit affiliations? Yes, there were and they were right. It was the ethical thing for a person under investigation to do.

Then there was John. No, not Kerry, not Edwards, John Ashcroft; 'partisan hack', 'fundamentalist pervert', he 'leaked' classified information in his open hearing that he already 'leaked' in his private meeting. He 'leaked' it in public because in private they didn't think it was relevant. Why wasn't it relevant? Because it exposed the commission for the final time to government cover op that it was designed to be. Even the 9/11 families were angry about the conflicts. Their problem was they stopped at Zelikow when Gorelick was just as bad.

And lastly, the Democrats best friend is co-chair of the commission, Thomas Hamilton. You know him. He's the chairman of the "October Surprise" commission that p'ed off a lot of Bush haters that wanted him to testify before the commission about his Iran Contra connections. Hamilton was the chairman that avoided the Bush call and subsequently ignored further information provided by ex-KGB brass who had their own sigint op into the 1980 "October Surprise".

No worries. The government has it under control. President Clinton pardoned Al Schwimmer, another Iran-Contra arms dealer, and Bill was so heartstruck with the American's foreign policy during the 80s.

MoveOn.org is p'ed about the Fox News slogan "Fair and Balanced"? When are they gonna show equal critique for the US government that allegedly stands for "Liberty and Justice for All". I never read the fine print, but does it provide exclusions for the "enlightened class"?

Aaron...
I didn't say 'twisting the news', bithead. I said directly making up a quote. Are you accusing them of doing that or not?

*I* said they twisted it, and that's what they're accused of by far smarter people than myself and in more than just this case. Is there another way I can explain the concept to you that will help?

In reality, Jamie Gorelick has all along been the Clinton plant on the commission

THE plant?

What of BenVineste?

Erg, the administration said on numerous occasions that they did not believe an Iraq-9/11 link. They said this quite clearly. Of all the administration, only Cheney said he thought there might be a connection. GWB & Rice have been entirely consistent in stating that they did not believe that connection.

As for the rest of the 9/11 commission's findings, Commissioner Lehman said this on "Meet the Press":

"Well, I really totally disagree with what I thought was outrageously irresponsible journalism, to portray what the staff statement--and again, this is a staff statement; the commissioners have not addressed this issue yet--to portray it as contradicting what the administration said. There's really very little difference between what our staff found, what the administration is saying today and what the Clinton administration said. The Clinton administration portrayed the relationship between al- Qaeda and Saddam's intelligence services as one of cooperating in weapons development. There's abundant evidence of that. In fact, as you'll soon hear from Joe Klein, President Clinton justified his strike on the Sudan "pharmaceutical" site because it was thought to be manufacturing VX gas with the help of the Iraqi intelligence service.

Since then, that's been validated. There has been traces of Empta that comes straight from Iraq, and this confounds the Republicans, who accused Clinton of doing it for political purposes. But it confirms the cooperative relationship, which were the words of the Clinton administration, between al-Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence."

Here's a link to the full transcript on MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5255893/

I'm not saying the whole commission agrees (Ben-Veniste will dispute it), but you've made a claim that just is not true.

Bithead: it seems like a straightforward question to me: yes or no. Why is it so hard to answer?

As for the rest of the recent comments, who gives a Cheney about Jamie Gorelick? Go find somewhere else to complain about that.

Bithead: Ben Viniste may have been a plant by other Democrats, likely Washington Law Firms, but Gorelick was specifically belonged to the Clinton's. She's been a loyal patron and rewarded handsomely for it.

Aaron: Gorelick's important because she took the wall that was legally there and *made it higher than that which was legally required*. Mary Jo White, US Attorney in NYC during the 90s, indicated her concern about this overreach in memos which were released when news of Gorelick's conflict of interest came up. The reason this wall was so important was that it inhibited the CIA from sharing info with the FBI and from the FBI sharing info between the criminal and counter-intelligence divisions within itself. It's clear that Gorelick withheld this info from the commission but they decided to keep her on anyway. Why they did this I have no idea. It just diminished their credibility. Gorelick should have publically testified and they should have grilled her about why she made the wall higher than was legally required.
She shouldn't have sat on the committee in judgment of the pre-9/11 failures when she is reponsible for implimenting policy which helped lead to those failures.

Aaron: Gorelick's important because she took the wall that was legally there and *made it higher than that which was legally required*. Mary Jo White, US Attorney in NYC during the 90s, indicated her concern about this overreach in memos which were released when news of Gorelick's conflict of interest came up. The reason this wall was so important was that it inhibited the CIA from sharing info with the FBI and from the FBI sharing info between the criminal and counter-intelligence divisions within itself. It's clear that Gorelick withheld this info from the commission but they decided to keep her on anyway. Why they did this I have no idea. It just diminished their credibility. Gorelick should have publically testified and they should have grilled her about why she made the wall higher than was legally required.
She shouldn't have sat on the committee in judgment of the pre-9/11 failures when she is reponsible for implimenting policy which helped lead to those failures.

Sorry about the double post

This is serious stuff, folks.

What Sandy Berger did could land him a federal prison sentence for 10 years. As a former head of the NSC, it is impossible that this was just "innocent mishap". Berger knew full well the severe consequences of his actions. And all information points to an deliberate act on his part.

Something big is brewing here.

Aaron: I care about the members of the commission. Correction, I did care about the members. Now that they've been thoroughly outed by their immense conflicts the money spent, the information accessed and providential findings are all a waste of tax payer money. Not only will the tax payer lose on the money side, but they'll also get screwed on the accountability side.

If National Archives employees were aware of Berger's actions then the grounds are there for US Marshalls to draw their weapons and down Mr. Berger if he refuses to comply. In other words, it is very difficult to remove classified materials from a 'Secure Room'. One's pants or socks is about the only place you stuff documents short of swallowing them.

Karen: More on Gorelick. She wrote a memo in 1996 to INS director's offices granting them authority to ignore the same statutory standards the DoJ and INS had voluntarily created to restrict immigration numbers. She wrote the memo after Vice-President Gore lobbied her to do it.

The Democrats were obviously in a rush to register voters and the DAG waived the same kind of statutory "walls" that she refused to waive on investigations of terrorism.

It's the kind of hypocrasy that should result in a permanent ball and chain for Ms. Gorelick. But literally, the outcry for her to resign, recuse herself or for the Chair and Vice-Chair to address this matter are like toothpicks in a tornado.

Care about the commission all you want. I thought this post was supposed to be about Berger, so I'd just prefer it if you cared about it somewhere else.

I'm pitching the name Hot Pants Scandal. What do you think?

BTW, I've got a running report on what the bloggers are saying at my site.

irishlass: I like that. I'd love to see this headline though.

"Former Clinton Official Caught Stuffing Documents In His Pants; Claims He Was Consulting His Chief Advisors"

Ed Morresy has an interesting point:

The question now is when did the Kerry campaign find out about the security breaches at the National Archives? These thefts happened in October 2003, and Berger served the Kerry campaign since he started sweeping the primaries in February, at least. Bruce Lindsey had been notified at the time the documents disappeared. Not only that, but in order to receive security briefings during the campaign, Berger would have to either have retained his clearance or applied for a new one. While under this kind of investigation, that clearance had to have been cancelled or suspended -- something that the Kerry campaign had to know. The question is what did Kerry know, and when did he know it?

Sandy Berger's actions were almost certainly politically motivated. This is part of a long term trend where actors from both sides of the political spectrum have increasingly leaked or appropriated sensitive national security materials for political advantage.

From the leaking to the press by a US congressman that we had a tap on UBL's sat phone, to the intel wars between Pentagon and State, to the Plame affair, to the WMD scuffle over Iraq, to the 911 report there has been a disturbing and accelerating trend toward disclosure for petty political purposes.

This is endangering the national security of the United States of America.

“From the leaking to the press by a US congressman that we had a tap on UBL's sat phone, to the intel wars between Pentagon and State, to the Plame affair, to the WMD scuffle over Iraq, to the 911 report there has been a disturbing and accelerating trend toward disclosure for petty political purposes.”

Political purposes? I suspect that sometimes it’s mere human stupidity. Or, in the Plame case---a passing reference to something commonly known to most of the Washington insiders. The real question regarding Joe and Valerie's nonsense is whether a CIA employee can get away with a lot of bovine excrement because they can subtly threaten you with jail if you try to defend yourself! I don't think this was the reason for the creation of the original statutes pertaining to this matter.

Brennan Stout wrote:

Karen: More on Gorelick. She wrote a memo in 1996 to INS director's offices granting them authority to ignore the same statutory standards the DoJ and INS had voluntarily created to restrict immigration numbers. She wrote the memo after Vice-President Gore lobbied her to do it.
The Democrats were obviously in a rush to register voters and the DAG waived the same kind of statutory "walls" that she refused to waive on investigations of terrorism.

'Erg, the administration said on numerous occasions that they did not believe an Iraq-9/11 link. They said this quite clearly. Of all the administration, only Cheney said he thought there might be a connection. GWB & Rice have been entirely consistent in stating that they did not believe that connection.'

And Cheney is not part of the administration, somehow ? Given that these statements came from the number 2 person in the administration (some would say number one), given that he continued to hawk the Prague-Atta link AFTER the commission's initial report came out, how can one claim that the administration did not allege a link ?

The other point is that several administration members said or implied general operational and significant links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and that turns out to not have been the case.

'She wrote a memo in 1996 to INS director's offices granting them authority to ignore the same statutory standards the DoJ and INS had voluntarily created to restrict immigration numbers. She wrote the memo after Vice-President Gore lobbied her to do it.

The Democrats were obviously in a rush to register voters and the DAG waived the same kind of statutory "walls" that she refused to waive on investigations of terrorism.'

Total nonsense. Clearly, you don't know what you're talking about.

The issue then was naturalization (which is different from immigration). Indeed, an immigrant cannot vote (and naturalization takes, barring acts of congress a minimun of 3-4 years, and more like 5-6 from the time someone becomes a permanent resident).

Naturalization is very slow. Even after applying, it takes 1 year in most locations, sometimes more. My wife became a naturalized citizen over that time, so I know about that. There are backlogs of over 1 million people eligible to become citizens but stuck because the INS could not process them. A part of this process is to have a fingerprint check with the FBI done (incidentally, you have to do that when becoming a permanent resident too).

Now, if any other government agency had a backlog of 1 million, took 1.5 years to process routine applications, you'd see conservatives calling for blood in the streets. Oddly enough, that doesn't happen for this case.

The fact is that Gorelick urged local offices to speed up processing, hire more staff etc. to clear the backlog. Under normal cases, we'd call it a welcome case of government trying to clear up a massive backlog. Strangely, in this case, conservatives don't seem to think so, and we see all sorts of conspiracy theories.

Josh Marshall is a sicko-fart cheerleader of the DNC and all things democratic party. He is a reliable spinner for them. Take a problem, and Josh can make it look that it is all GOP fault. He has yet to own a single mistake from someone from his party. He is an infantile juvenile.

Pat Henry

Thorley Winston: Source? Sure do.

The House Judiciary Committee Impeachment investigation staff document
2000251 is the full memo. It reads.

"Subject: Citizenship USA

We hereby delegate to you full authority to waive, suspend, or deviate from DOJ and INS non-statutory policies, regulations, and procedures
provided you operate within the confines of the law. Please let us know which rules you have waived.

We expect you to use this authority to strengthen security against naturalization of aliens who do not meet statutory qualification standards for American citizenship, and to enhance the speed and convenience of the process for those who do. We hold you responsible
for your judgement and the results.

Jamie Gorelick
Deputy Attorney General

Chris Sale
Deputy Commissioner"

Here's a primer of Congressional Investigation Documents into "Citizenship USA".
link

The Memo

'We hereby delegate to you full authority to waive, suspend, or deviate from DOJ and INS non-statutory policies, regulations, and procedures
provided you operate within the confines of the law. Please let us know which rules you have waived.

We expect you to use this authority to strengthen security against naturalization of aliens who do not meet statutory qualification standards for American citizenship, and to enhance the speed and convenience of the process for those who do. '

Please tell me where this as you said,
'granting them authority to ignore the same statutory standards the DoJ and INS had voluntarily created to restrict immigration numbers'

She specifically says NOT to ignore statutory requirements. A statute is a Congressional law. All she's saying is that the office speed up proceedings, which, when you have 1.2 million people on a waiting list, and delays stretching several years in some locations, seems like a great thing to do.

To avoid further irrelevant claims, let me point out that
1) these people were already in the country
2) they were permanent residents for a minimum of 3 years, which meant that they had to
a) have already had a fingerprint FBI check prior to becoming a permanent resident.
b) Other than not being able to vote, they had all the same rights as American citizens (able to work and travel anywhere).

Erg, yes, I did mention Cheney, but it was clear from the interview that he believed Iraq was a possible connection. Also he was trying to be careful and not take it too far. IMO, he made a mistake in not reiterating what the rest of the administration has said so often & so publicly. Bush, Rice, and Powell are on the record multiple times stating that they did not believe a connection to Iraq for 9/11. I'll post a follow up so you can evaluate their words for yourself.

If you got some other impression, all I can say is, you need to pay closer attention. The press should receive some blame here (a lot!), because the headlines in the NYT & other papers have often implied that the White House had stated that connection. (It seems the press doesn't believe anyone can actually remember or look up what the administration has officially said.

As for your other repeated assertion about the commissions finds, I'll repeat again what the Commissioner Lehman said on TV:

"There's really very little difference between what our staff found, what the administration is saying today and what the Clinton administration said. The Clinton administration portrayed the relationship between al- Qaeda and Saddam's intelligence services as one of cooperating in weapons development. There's abundant evidence of that."

Statement by Vice President Richard Cheney
“VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I’m not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can’t say that. On the other hand, . . . new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. . . . There is - again, I want to separate out 9/11, from the other relationships between Iraq and the al-Qaeda organization. But there is a pattern of relationships going back many years. And in terms of exchanges and in terms of people, we’ve had recently since the operations in Afghanistan - we’ve seen al-Qaeda members operating physically in Iraq and off the territory of Iraq. . . . QUESTION: But no direct link? VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I can’t - I’ll leave it right where it’s at. I don’t want to go beyond that. I’ve tried to be cautious and restrained in my comments.”
Source: Meet the Press, NBC (9/8/2002).
Statement by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
“MS. RICE: There is plenty to indict Saddam Hussein without a direct link to 9/11. He clearly has links to terrorism. QUESTION: All right. And links to terrorism would include al Qaeda? I just want to be certain. MS. RICE: Links to terrorism would include al Qaeda, yes.”
Source: Fox News Sunday, Fox News (9/15/2002).
Statement by Secretary of State Colin Powell
“QUESTION: You referred in your speech to the links between al-Qaida and Iraq. Now, even some of our secret service chiefs say publicly there is no evidence of that. SECRETARY POWELL: We do have evidence of it. We are not suggesting that there is a 9/11 link, but we are suggesting - we do have evidence - of connections over the years between Iraq and al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations.”
Source: Interview with European Editors, State Dept (1/26/2003).
Statement by Vice President Richard Cheney
“With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohammed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.”
Source: Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003).
(the czechs are skeptical and the CIA and FBI think it didnt happen)

Statement by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice“Saddam Hussein - no one has said that there is evidence that Saddam Hussein directed or controlled 9/11, but let’s be very clear, he had ties to al-Qaeda, he had al-Qaeda operatives who had operated out of Baghdad.”
Source: Meet the Press, NBC (9/28/2003).

'Bush, Rice, and Powell are on the record multiple times stating that they did not believe a connection to Iraq for 9/11. I'll post a follow up so you can evaluate their words for yourself.

If you got some other impression, all I can say is, you need to pay closer attention. The press should receive some blame here (a lot!), because the headlines in the NYT & other papers have often implied that the White House had stated that connection. '

I've been paying very close attention. The fact is that the administration has implied major, significant links between Al Qaeda and Iraq several times, even saying it openly. All of that seems dubious now.

There have been several attempts to draw connections with 9/11, as well, by Cheney and in more subtle ways by others. 50-70% of americans on the eve of the IRaq war believed that Saddam was responsble for 9/11 --- they didn't get that idea from the Tooth Fairy, but from deliberate systematic comments by the administration.

It's been pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.”
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 12/9/01

Later, on CNBC

Well, let's get to Mohamed Atta for a minute because you mentioned him, as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, 'pretty well confirmed.'" CHENEY: “No, I never said that.”
- CNBC, 6/20/04

The VP has said several times that Saddam had long established links with Al Qaeda. This is a case of being deliberately misleading, because there were occasional meetings between Al Qaeda and Saddam agencies (in the shadowy world of intelligence and counter-intelligence, it would be suprising if there were no meetings), but no significant or operational links and no links in the last 5 years.

Erg, go read what you posted earlier. You are changing the goal posts.

You referred to "wacky ideas" that the 9/11 commission was debunking, and you confuse two things:
1) working relationship between Iraq & AQ.
2) collaboration between Iraq & AQ on the *specific* issue of the 9/11 attacks.

Item 2 is a straw man argument, just as I said it was.

Item 1 has been noted since the Clinton administration. What the commission has said so far backs up me, not you.

'1) working relationship between Iraq & AQ.
2) collaboration between Iraq & AQ on the *specific* issue of the 9/11 attacks.

Item 2 is a straw man argument, just as I said it was.'

You may have said that, but Cheney continues to assert differently whenever he goes off his meds. So its not a straw man.

As far as 1) goes, let me repeat again that all our evidence shows no operational or significant links. That may fit your definition of a working relationship, it does not fit mine, and I would hate to think that we went to war because 7 years back, Sadam rebroadcast some Al Qaeda tapes or the like.

If you think that Cheney represents the entire administration and nothing that the rest of them say matters, then it would be impossible for anyone to convince you of the clarify of that message.

The press, on the other hand, lead by the NYT, has unceasingly set up and knocked down the non-argument (of the 9/11 Iraq involvement), which is why the idea is even out there.

For my part, I have read a lot of comments on the war on many blogs, and it is rare to find someone who favors the war *and* who believes that particular connection. Those in favor of the war are better educated, at least there, let us say.

Re the second point, you keep making this assertion about what our intelligence agencies say, but you do not back this up.

Your original argument was that the 9/11 commission had "debunked" these connections.
I quote to you one of the commissioners who very pointedly did the opposite.

*****
Anyway, the 9/11 commission is due to release its report about now, right? Do yourself a favor and read it rather than just the headlines. You may be astonished at what the NYT sees fit to omit. It may or may not change your mind about the war, but why not know the facts about what our intelligence agencies are saying?

a) Berger has admitted nothing of the sort. Its still unclear whether the documents were originals or not.

It doesn't matter whether the documents were originals or copies. Anyone who's ever worked with classified material knows this. Improperly handling ANY classified document is a crime. Saying that Berger only took copies out is a red herring intended to deflect the real argument: that he removed classified material without authorization.

Well the 9/11 commission doesn't think any documents were made unavailable to it:

But the documents Berger destroyed were not necessarily ones that the 9/11 commission wanted.

hmm...this is all very interesting.
1. Berger is a natural born klepto
2. this is just the first of many
well aimed shots at the Kerry
campaign by the Bushies
3. the Kerry campaign will unravel like
a cheap shirt
4. maybe the Clinton group IS behind it
5. it has a Watergate smell to it and
will hurt Kerry. It's the first wound

It doesn't matter whether the documents were originals or copies.

Yes, and no.
Yes, you're coirrect, either way it's illegal. No, in that taking the originals bears his Intent to obscure evdience. Which, it's clear now, that this is exactly what he was doing.

At issue is not so much the documents themselves, but rather the hand-written notes by Clinton staffers... notes may I add, the 9/11 commission apparently never saw, since the theft occurred prior to the commission seeing the original handwritten notes.

Note also the parsing of Berger's admission... he admits taking his handwritten notes... but... notes made WHEN? I the archive.... or made as a part of his job in the Clinton Misadministration?

'If you think that Cheney represents the entire administration and nothing that the rest of them say matters, then it would be impossible for anyone to convince you of the clarify of that message.'

Cheney doesnt' represent the entire administration. He represents the number 2 person in the administration, the strongest VP ever. Some would say he's number one, but I disagree with that. Cheney also represents a very important and very significant group (neocons) in the WH. Of course CHeney's viewpoints are extremely important and should be considered as very refelective of administration position (or part of it anyway). If Bush doesn't agree with Cheney, he should tell him to shut the f**k up about these assertions.

'Anyway, the 9/11 commission is due to release its report about now, right? Do yourself a favor and read it rather than just the headlines. You may be astonished at what the NYT sees fit to omit. It may or may not change your mind about the war, but why not know the facts about what our intelligence agencies are saying'

I have just glanced through the sections about Iraq. I don't know what the NYT is reporting, but what it does say is 1) Atta's meeting with Ani, the Iraqi agent (now in custody) is almost certainly false 2) The last Iraqi attempt at using terror against the US was the 1993 plot against Bush sr, a decade ago 3) There was no collaborative relatioship, and they did not collaborate on any sort of attacks. 4) The most that could be said in terms of relations is that they had a loose non-aggression pact against each other, and that there are some indications that Saddam may have helped Ansar Al Islam (which was supported by Bin Laden) against Kurdish groups in Northern Iraq, although Ansar Al Islam was originally a Saddam enemy.

Let's face it, the guy needed to grab classified info for the Kerry campaign. He probably also needed to grab information that would implicate his former boss in something or other (the legacy lives on!). In the end, Berger used no better sense than a child who pockets goodies before exiting the candy store. If it had been Condoleeza Rice who filtched the documents, she would already be wearing handcuffs. He'll get away with it, though. The high priced, dialed in, American liberals always do. Ah, it's lovely to have the press in your corner. It makes the game that much easier to win!

'Let's face it, the guy needed to grab classified info for the Kerry campaign.'

Lets face it, anyone with any common sense would realize that Berger did this when the Kerry campaign was written off as dead, 9-12 months back and Howard Dean was the new Messiah. Anyone with any common sense would also realize that Kerry could get any of these documents because he is a Senator on the appropriate committees.

'. He'll get away with it, though. The high priced, dialed in, American liberals always do'

Given Bush Sr's record of pardoning indicted felons over Iran-Contra when a lame duck, I would look at the old phrase about glass houses and stones.

I believe that one of the primary ramifications of the Sandy Berger classified documents situation is to prove beyond any rational doubt just how apallingly biased, partisan and liberal most of the so-called main-stream media in America has become. Had a former Republican Administration official and Bush Campaign Advisor committed such obviously unlawful and clearly politically-motivated acts, this story would immediately have become sensationalized front page fodder for many months.

However, in Berger's case, the story was largely buried and downplayed, and continues to be so contrary to any rational explanation. The Dem's (and media's) protests about the timing of the "leaks", while abjectly failing to condemn the unlawful actions themselves, are merely a pathetic effort to shift the focus from where it ought to be. Clinton's fabled "Focus Groups" would have been all over this one had Berger been a Republican operative, and who could really blame them? If the pitcher serves you a phat fastball right down the pipe, it's time to swing, and hard. In contrast, the Republican response (other than POSSIBLY timing the "leak" in a tactically conducive manner) has been measured and in most cases, inexplicably subdued.

Also, if "the shoe" WAS "on the other foot", the Dems and their talk show surrogates would have played it to the hilt, in sound bite after sound bite expressing vitriolic outrage and demanding hearings and swift prosecution to the fullest extent of the law (and rightfully so). This unmistakable double standard of accountability, both in the media and within the liberal community from the highest levels down to the average, mostly uninformed liberal citizen, has reached a level that usually precludes any meaninful, rational debate about important issues. The almost unprecedented "polarization" we now see in the American political realm is a fundamental and inevitable result when one side of the fence (for the most part) has somehow unburdened themselves of any moral obligation regarding truth, accuracy, fact and basic standards of "fair play".

Certainly, there are many extremists and on the other side of that fence, and they are no less repugnant and irresponsible. However, it's a simple fact that they are FAR less influencial both individually and as a whole, primarily because they are not afforded the airtime and contrived "legitimacy" that their opposites routinely enjoy in the mainstream media.

I was a government Aviation Safety Official for 20 years, and routinely had access to classified documents. Had I or my co-workers at any level "mishandled" even a single sensitive document, we would have been fired and immediately prosecuted. Had any of us received oral sex with a subordinate on company time, on government property, same story. Had we argued that we took documents "by mistake" or through "sloppiness" (talking about the documents here), the investigators would have laughed in our faces as they handed us over to the FBI. Had we argued that oral sex on the job with a subordinate (or even superior, if you really want to, um, get ahead) was a "private matter", let alone lied about it under oath, same story. We received mandatory briefing after briefing, and document after document detailing these "no-nos" and the penalties we should expect, literally ad nauseum. Apparently, these strict ethics regulations and draconian penalties only apply to the worker bees. Politics be damned...a standard is a standard.

My overall point is that differences of opinion and the freedom to openly express them (whether based on fact or not) are one of the things that make Amerca truly great. Cliche perhaps, but true nonetheless. I just wish the pendulum of public accountability would swing back towards the middle such that one group of politicians and their minions aren't constantly receiving a free pass for ridiculous conduct, while others continue to be viciously attacked even when the alleged basis is resoundingly discredited by independant sources.

Then again, I also wish that "Members Only" jackets were back in style. Go figure.

the most intersting part of the media is how little they care about all the democratic lies. From Kerry to Kennedy to to Clinton's to Gore to Moore, the media loves these self serving rich liberals that cliam they are one of the people yet history shows different. Bt the media wont have any of the TRUTH. Bill Clinton lied to his wife and the country but Martha Stewart is going to jail ?

WHERE DID THE TERRORIST GET INFO. (BERGER)

MAYBE BERGER HAD A SIDE JOB.

MAKE BUSH LOOK BAD NO MATTER WHAT.

If Berger had been a republican this story would still be on the front page of every liberal "newspaper" in the country.