DebateGate

General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: R.R. on December 24, 2006, 03:19:56 PM

Title: The Sandy Berger Experiment
Post by: R.R. on December 24, 2006, 03:19:56 PM
The Sandy Berger Experiment: Bush Official Destroyed 9/11 Documents




Former National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice was accused of the theft and destruction of classified materials related to 9/11.




In 2003, Rice spent several days reviewing classified materials in the National Archives, prior to a deposition before the 9/11 Commission. She allegedly removed material related to the Bush administration's activities leading up to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. She later admitted to destroying the documents.




During a visit to the Archives to review 9/11 material, she took a break outside without an escort. She had placed four documents in her purse. She then was said to have slid the documents under a construction trailer; later, she retrieved the material from the construction site.




When officials from the National Archive realized that some documents were missing, they called Rice at her office.




Aware that mere possession of the documents could incriminate her, she shredded the classified material and placed it in the trash.




Rice had access to National Security Council (NSC) numbered documents, printed copies of e-mails, and staff member office files (SMOFs). The SMOFs contain working papers of NSC staff members, including Rice, and their content is not inventoried by the Archives at the document level. The SMOFs given to Rice during her first two visits contained only original documents.




Therefore, there appears to be no way to determine whether original documents related directly to the 9/11 Commission's investigation were stolen or destroyed.




Once this shocking news broke, the media piled on. The New York Times ran a series of nine straight, "above-the-fold" front page stories on the Rice scandal and how the documents could have served as evidence of the Bush administration's prior knowledge of 9/11.




CNN's Wolf Blitzer devoted an entire week of shows to the scandal, filming his show in front of the National Archives, and interviewing noted experts Paul Begala, Jack Cafferty, and James Carville.




MSNBC's Keith Olbermann also pilloried the Bush administration, accusing the president of advance knowledge of 9/11 and a subsequent coverup. In a series of shows captioned, "What did Bush know about 9/11 - and when did he know it?", Olbermann began a campaign to have Bush impeached over the incident. He stated that the destruction of the documents, "cast a dark shadow over everything that this administration has ever done."




The Democratic leadership in Congress also hammered the Bush administration. They demanded a harsh prosecution of Rice, noting that a typical sentence for the destruction or theft of classified documents was in the range of ten to twenty years.




Democrats also formed a committee to explore the impeachment of the President.




As expected, the talk shows ran wild with the story. David Letterman ran two top-ten lists on the topic over the course of a single week. One centered around a John Kerry guest appearance. Kerry read the "Top Ten Documents that the Bush administration 'Lost' ".


* * *

Oh, wait.

I'm very, very sorry. I got part of this story wrong. It wasn't Condoleeza Rice and the Bush administration. It was actually Sandy Berger and the Clinton administration. My mistake. Never mind.

Amazing how a party affiliation impacts news coverage and political sensibilities, eh?

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/12/sandy-berger-experiment-bush-official.html
Title: Re: The Sandy Berger Experiment
Post by: Mucho on December 24, 2006, 03:32:34 PM
The other alternative is that this story is only important to the anal retentive right.
Title: Re: The Sandy Berger Experiment
Post by: Plane on December 25, 2006, 11:28:18 PM
The other alternative is that this story is only important to the anal retentive right.


Do you see no disparity Mucho?

Sandy Burger is covering up something , what could possibly be worth covering that way?
Title: Re: The Sandy Berger Experiment
Post by: Mucho on December 26, 2006, 01:38:53 PM
The other alternative is that this story is only important to the anal retentive right.


Do you see no disparity Mucho?

Sandy Burger is covering up something , what could possibly be worth covering that way?

The only place I have seen this silly shit is on RW nutcase webpages & blogs. Drudge is trying to get lucky by blowing up an inconsequential story into a Federal Case , but documents are not as sexy as blowjobs.
Title: Re: The Sandy Berger Experiment
Post by: sirs on December 26, 2006, 01:48:39 PM
Amazing how a party affiliation impacts news coverage and political sensibilities, eh?

Can it be made any more tranparent?  You'll also note the deafening hypocritical silence from the left
Title: Re: The Sandy Berger Experiment
Post by: Amianthus on December 26, 2006, 01:51:04 PM
The only place I have seen this silly shit is on RW nutcase webpages & blogs. Drudge is trying to get lucky by blowing up an inconsequential story into a Federal Case , but documents are not as sexy as blowjobs.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/21/ap/politics/mainD8M5AV780.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/21/ap/politics/mainD8M5AV780.shtml)

So, either CBS News is a "RW nutcase webpages & blogs" or you don't bother to read the mainstream news.

Somehow, I figure it's the latter - you may be too stupid to read real news, and need to have it spoonfed to you (selectively, of course) on moonbat blogs.
Title: Re: The Sandy Berger Experiment
Post by: BT on December 26, 2006, 02:03:19 PM
Quote
Somehow, I figure it's the latter - you may be too stupid to read real news, and need to have it spoonfed to you (selectively, of course) on moonbat blogs.

Ouch!
Title: Re: The Sandy Berger Experiment
Post by: Mucho on December 26, 2006, 03:16:30 PM
Quote
Somehow, I figure it's the latter - you may be too stupid to read real news, and need to have it spoonfed to you (selectively, of course) on moonbat blogs.

Ouch!

Ouch what? You hate old news and this is old and insignificant news. Besides , when did you RW freaks start believing CBS News. They lied about your Fuehrer or dont you remember that far back.
Title: Re: The Sandy Berger Experiment
Post by: Amianthus on December 26, 2006, 03:28:31 PM
Ouch what? You hate old news and this is old and insignificant news.

Yeah, because December 21, 2006 was soooo long ago. ROFL

Besides , when did you RW freaks start believing CBS News. They lied about your Fuehrer or dont you remember that far back.

I read lots of news sources. I'm not a pinhead like knutty who only reads the moonbatty blogs to get information. The writing in the real news articles must be too far over his edumacation level. After all, they write on a fourth grade reading level.
Title: Re: The Sandy Berger Experiment
Post by: Plane on January 04, 2007, 12:36:43 PM
The other alternative is that this story is only important to the anal retentive right.


Do you see no disparity Mucho?

Sandy Burger is covering up something , what could possibly be worth covering that way?


Hmmmm......

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53629

President Bill Clinton signed a letter authorizing former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger's access to classified documents that later came up missing, according to a newly released investigation report by the National Archives and Records Administration.
The sensitive drafts of the National Security Council's "Millennium After Action Review" on the Clinton administration's handling of the al-Qaida terror threats in December 1999 suspiciously disappeared after Berger said he intended to "determine if Executive Privilege needed to be exerted prior to documents being provided to the 9/11 Commission." Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft testified before the 9-11 commission about the millennium report, urging the panel to ask why the document's warnings and "blueprint" to thwart al-Qaida's plans to target the U.S. were ignored by the Clinton administration and not shared with the incoming Bush security staff.


What?
Title: Re: The Sandy Berger Experiment
Post by: Mucho on January 04, 2007, 12:46:30 PM
The other alternative is that this story is only important to the anal retentive right.


Do you see no disparity Mucho?

Sandy Burger is covering up something , what could possibly be worth covering that way?


Hmmmm......

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53629

President Bill Clinton signed a letter authorizing former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger's access to classified documents that later came up missing, according to a newly released investigation report by the National Archives and Records Administration.
The sensitive drafts of the National Security Council's "Millennium After Action Review" on the Clinton administration's handling of the al-Qaida terror threats in December 1999 suspiciously disappeared after Berger said he intended to "determine if Executive Privilege needed to be exerted prior to documents being provided to the 9/11 Commission." Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft testified before the 9-11 commission about the millennium report, urging the panel to ask why the document's warnings and "blueprint" to thwart al-Qaida's plans to target the U.S. were ignored by the Clinton administration and not shared with the incoming Bush security staff.


What?

(http://worldnetdaily.com/images/wnd_logo.gif)


WHAT ???!!!

Might as well quote the RNC about this bullshit.
Title: Re: The Sandy Berger Experiment
Post by: Plane on January 04, 2007, 01:08:17 PM
So what did Sandy Burger really take and what was the real reason ?
Title: Re: The Sandy Berger Experiment
Post by: Mucho on January 04, 2007, 01:18:08 PM
So what did Sandy Burger really take and what was the real reason ?

I dont know and really dont care what a bunch off RW loons get their panties all in an uproar about. You are just grasping at straws and hoping to get lucky with some inconsequential bullshit again.
Title: Re: The Sandy Berger Experiment
Post by: Plane on January 04, 2007, 01:33:01 PM



So we find Sandy and Bill burying something in a shallow grave as if they were desprate to get it out of sight  , I am only courious because I am desprate?
Title: Re: The Sandy Berger Experiment
Post by: Mucho on January 04, 2007, 01:39:00 PM



So we find Sandy and Bill burying something in a shallow grave as if they were desprate to get it out of sight  , I am only courious because I am desprate?

Its just that you guys believe such silly shit like 1) a blow job is a federal case & worthy of impeachmen t2) there were WMD's in Iraq 3) there are ties to Al Quaeda in Iraq 4) Geo W Bush is sane ad infinitum & ad nauseum. And dont tell me others believed this crap as well. You are still all silly suckers.
Title: Re: The Sandy Berger Experiment
Post by: Plane on January 04, 2007, 02:03:41 PM
Quote
...1) a blow job is a federal case & worthy of impeachmen t2) there were WMD's in Iraq 3) there are ties to Al Quaeda in Iraq 4) Geo W Bush is sane ad infinitum & ad nauseum.


Number one. No one ever Charged Bill Clinton with any charges for anything he ever did with Monica Lewinski( not counting the knot on his head that Hillary gave him)


Number two, Saddam Hussein was once the proud proprieter of  the worlds third largest collection of WMD, this is a fact that has changed , but we didn't know exactly when it chnged or exactly how it changed we only know that two Bushes forced this change to happen. Do you really know where all that stuff is now?

Number three, intercepted letters from Al Queda leadership in Iraq a few months ago estimated Al Queda deaths in Iraq to be 4000 , this has got to be a low ball estimate. And of course only a fraction of the number of innocents killed by Al Queda.

Number Four , are you an authority on insanity?



BTW are you changeing the subject because you know that Clinton has something worse to hide than we know yet of , or are you changeing the subject because you just think it likely that Clinton has some worse secrets than we know yet?

Sandy Burger went into the Document store to hide something , he was so desprate he was stuffing these documents into his pants , Imagine for yourself how you would feel about it , if Condeleeza  Rice had been caught doing something like this.
Title: Re: The Sandy Berger Experiment
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on January 04, 2007, 02:08:53 PM
 
This whole thread sucks donkeyhonks bigtime, RR.
Title: Re: The Sandy Berger Experiment
Post by: Brassmask on January 04, 2007, 02:53:48 PM
Wasn't Bush "president" when Sandy Berger stole those documents?

Title: Re: The Sandy Berger Experiment
Post by: Amianthus on January 04, 2007, 03:02:32 PM
Wasn't Bush "president" when Sandy Berger stole those documents?

Yeah, that's why he got caught.
Title: Re: The Sandy Berger Experiment
Post by: Mucho on January 04, 2007, 03:11:16 PM
, Imagine for yourself how you would feel about it , if Condeleeza  Rice had been caught doing something like this.

I got somethin I would  like to stick in Condi's pants right here.

(http://www.bestbody.ru/pic/muscleman.jpg)

She might not be such an uptight bitch then.
Title: Re: The Sandy Berger Experiment
Post by: Amianthus on January 04, 2007, 03:15:13 PM
Your boyfriend, Knutty?
Title: Re: The Sandy Berger Experiment
Post by: Plane on January 04, 2007, 04:24:12 PM
, Imagine for yourself how you would feel about it , if Condeleeza  Rice had been caught doing something like this.

I got somethin I would  like to stick in Condi's pants right here.

(http://www.bestbody.ru/pic/muscleman.jpg)

She might not be such an uptight bitch then.


In the spirit of Bi-Partinship , would you reccomend the same treatment for Sandy Berger now?
Title: Re: The Sandy Berger Experiment
Post by: Mucho on January 04, 2007, 05:27:13 PM


In the spirit of Bi-Partinship , would you reccomend the same treatment for Sandy Berger now?
[/quote]

Why not? It is about as silly and unimportant as this whole ridiculous thread .