Ted Sorenson is saying that.
And see: Giuliani ≈ Nixon.
Somebody seems to have plugged in a new column-generating machine.
What's next? Hillary ≈ Jimmy Carter?
Maybe it's all a reaction to the elephant in the room: Thompson ≈ Reagan.
१९ जुलै, २००७
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२६६ टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 266 पैकी 201 – 266Sgt.,
Blow me.
Hmmm...Who is the shell script calling "Theodore?" Moi?
Actually, my favorite Byzantine Empress was Theodora, whose most memorable quote was that she, "...regretted that she had but three...."
But I will leave off there, as this is a family blog.
—"Teddy"
Swans are fine feathered friends.
Theodore,
I understand.
Swans are fine feathered friends.
More geese than swans now live, more fools than wise.
—Orlando "Ted" Gibbons
jim c. wrote:
Clinton had more than one opportunity to get bin Laden handed to him.
Oh, look, Sean Hannity's parrot is a commenter at Althouse!
Jim, let's look at what the 9/11 commission said about the Hannity claim:
[F]ormer Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States... Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.
Hmmm. No reliable evidence to support the claim. What does that mean to you? Or do you just skip the thinking part and simply repeat whatever Sean says? Squawk!
No one here watches these news show.
"We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."
Thanks, Sandy Berger!
jim c. wrote:
Clinton had over 6 years since the first WTC bombing to prevent further attacks.
Following your "logic," George Herbert Walker Bush was responsible for the first WTC bombing.
I have to say, aside from the irrationality of your argument, you seem terribly uninformed about terrorism in general and the recent US history of counterterrorism efforts specifically. For example, why don't you share with us a detailed history of the 1996 omnibus terror bill? What happened to the bill pushed by Clinton to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network? What did Team Bush do with the deal Clinton negotiated with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development regarding tax havens used by al-Qaeda? What happened in Congress to attempts to improve airport security by implementing the recommendations of the Gore commission?
There are a lot of people who share responsibility for the failure to prevent the attack of 9/11. Clinton is one of them; Bush is another. Why don't you dump the partisan moaning, refer to reliable and credible sources and think clearly and rationally about the problem of terrorism before you accuse others of "twisting facts." If you can't do that, why don't you at least tell us how Clinton is to blame for Bush's failure to get bin Laden "dead or alive" since he made that pledge? (No credit will be given for suggesting that Bush meant death from old age.)
Pogo wrote:
Thanks, Sandy Berger!
Incredibly lame, Pogo. Don't you read? Try this from the WSJ (April 6, 2005):
So we called Justice Department Public Integrity chief prosecutor Noel Hillman, who assured us that Mr. Berger did not deny any documents to history. "There is no evidence that he intended to destroy originals," said Mr. Hillman. "There is no evidence that he did destroy originals. We have objectively and affirmatively confirmed that the contents of all the five documents at issue exist today and were made available to the 9/11 Commission."
Do Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh have a secret source of information not available to the 9/11 Commission or to Justice Department Public Integrity chief prosecutor Noel Hillman?
Seven Machos wrote:
No one here watches these news show.
LOL!
"There is no evidence that he did destroy originals."
Well, apparently Noel Hillman and you believe that. Now exactly why would a man steal mere duplicates of a document and thereby relinquish his license to practice law?
Sorry, Cyrus, you find it "lame" that Berger destroyed evidence about Clinton and terrorism, but I find it a little more than curious.
Luckyoldson said...
Blow me.
This is why no one takes you seriously.
Luckyoldson said...
[To Pogo:]*I hope this doesn't effect your relationship with Fen-Fen.
I was beginning to think you had resolved your homophobia issues. I guess I was wrong.
I noted that LOS referred to John Kennedy as a "liberal." Were JFK alive today, I suspect he would be considered a rather right wing republican: staunchly anti-communist with patriot rhetoric that even exceeded that of Ronald Reagan. And the whole matter of his hugh tax cut strategy.
Ironically, it seems to me, his campaign agaist Richard Nixon painted Nixon as soft on defense because the Soviets (he falsely alleged) had more missile than the US: the missile gap argument.
When he came into office, the Soviets, knowing they didnt have the nuclear arsenal they were painted with during the campaign, were desparate to make up the gap and worked with Castro to forward station shorter ranger missiles in Cuba to achieve some degree of parity.
I used the term "ironic" because it was JFKs missile gap campaign theme that ultimately led to the cuban missile crisis.
As far as reputations of presidents go, I make no claims for prescience, except to say I have lived long enough already to see unpopular presidents such as HST and those deemed ineffective such as Ike, now rising in hhistorical reputation and others falling in esteem as more documentation emerges about their presidencies.
As far as reputations of presidents go, I make no claims for prescience, except to say I have lived long enough already to see unpopular presidents such as HST...
A well taken point. As history marches on Presidents take on a historical persona.
Whether or not you support GWB or think he should be killed (like Lucky), GWB will be viewed in history is having an uncompromising and aggressive persona. Meaning that years from now when a future president is confronted with danger they will be plagued by Bush... "Bush would have kicked their ass.." people will say.
Clinton is already viewed as being a "political genius," even though through his genius he managed to lose congress to the opposition party and get impeached.
Pogo wrote:
Well, apparently Noel Hillman and you believe that.
I don't have any factual basis for believing otherwise. Do you? If so, squeak up.
Sorry, Cyrus, you find it "lame" that Berger destroyed evidence about Clinton and terrorism, but I find it a little more than curious.
You're confused. What I find lame is your suggestion, without factual basis, that Sandy Berger somehow successfully destroyed evidence that would have otherwise been available to the 9/11 Commission. Again, if you have something relevant and fact-based to share with us, please do so. Otherwise, will you please openly admit that your assertions are nothing more than partisan fabrications, distortions and exxagerations fed to you by blowhards like Limbaugh and Hannity and regurgitated by you as a party trick?
Sloan wrote:
"Bush would have kicked their ass.."
I hope so, but can we at least wait for success in Afghanistan and Iraq before we celebrate the "ass-kicking?"
Cyrus: What I find lame is your suggestion, without factual basis, that Sandy Berger somehow successfully destroyed evidence that would have otherwise been available to the 9/11 Commission...There is no evidence that he did destroy originals.
Cyrus, you're wrong on this count. The documets were orignial in the sense that they were each copy of a memo with differing individual remarks scribbled in the margins. Its the comments thats makes them unique.
Here's an example you can relate to: Condi Rice prepares a report on the 9-11 attacks and circulates it to key White House staff for review. Bush, Cheney, Powell and Armitage each write remarks in the margin either approving or contesting points line by line. Later, as Condi is about to testify before the 9-11 Commission, she drops by the National Archives and steals the memos with Powell's and Armitage's remarks. Takes them home and shreds them.
Also note, when Sandy Berger stole these documetns, he hid them under a construction trailer so he could come back and get them later. Hardly an act of absent-mindedness.
Aren't you at all curious to know what information Berger was hiding?
Herewith a link to the inspector general's report on the Berger case
And a followup report from Congressional Committe on Oversight and Government Reform:
“The 9/11 Commission relied on incomplete and misleading information regarding its access to documents Mr. Berger reviewed."
“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."
Careful with those facts, fen--they can be dangerous in the wrong hands!
QUOTATION OF THE DAY
"If there is one word I would use to sum up the atmosphere in Iraq — on the streets, in the countryside, in the neighborhoods and at the national level — that word would be fear."
By RYAN C. CROCKER, the American ambassador to Iraq.
Roger said..."I noted that LOS referred to John Kennedy as a "liberal." Were JFK alive today, I suspect he would be considered a rather right wing republican..."
Sure, except of course for civil rights, a woman's right to choose, gun control, stem cell research, separation of church and state, global warming, etc.
The anti-communism argument is specious at best, and the tax argument would always be relegated to the economic situation at the time.
Anybody who thinks JFK was a conservative needs to read more.
Justin,
If I told you once, I told you a thousand times...DON'T READ OR RESPOND TO MY POSTS.
I DON'T care what you have to say about ANYTHING.
Maybe if you were to actually read a newspaper or a book...instead of listening to your radio buddies; Rush, Sean, Bill, Ann, etc.
Try "Fiasco" for a starter.
A message from G.W. to one of our brave soldiers:
CNN-July 20, 2007 10:38 AM
Bush On Iraq Amputee: "Good Man, We're Gonna Get Him Some New Legs..."
Fen wrote:
Cyrus, you're wrong on this count. The documets were orignial in the sense that they were each copy of a memo with differing individual remarks scribbled in the margins. Its the comments thats makes them unique.
No, Fen, I've seen no evidence that the documents were copies with margin notes that made them "originals." What is your evidence that the copies had notations that made them original? Please be specific (source and page number, please). To date, I've only seen speculation that it is possible that Berger could have removed and destroyed such documents; I've seen no finding that he did this, however.
Now, you are always quick to mock those with goofy conspiracy theories about 9/11. Unless you have proof that Berger removed original material, will you downgrade your assertion from fact to conjecture?
Also, I think you've misread my post to Pogo. This happens frequently at Althouse because readers make assumptions about the beliefs of a commenter and respond based on those assumptions rather than responding to what has actually been written.
In this instance, we have this:
(In response to Pogo's assertion that Sandy Berger destroyed evidence that the 9/11 Commission could have used to establish the claim that Sudan offered to expel bin Laden to the United States...)
Hillman: There is no evidence that he did destroy originals.
Pogo: Well, apparently Noel Hillman and you believe that.
Cyrus: I don't have any factual basis for believing otherwise.
I'm not claiming to know that Berger did not destroy original material. I'm making the point that, without knowing that original material was destoyed and therefore unavailable to the 9/11 Commission, it is lame to assume it was.
I don't believe I'm wrong on this point, but please cite specific evidence to show otherwise if you have any.
Roger wrote:
Herewith a link to the inspector general's report on the Berger case.
Roger, if you can, please provide me with a page number for a specific section of the report you want me to read. I don't have time to read the entire report now. However, I note this from what I've read so far:
There were not any handwritten notes on the documents Mr. Berger removed from the archives.
That would make what he is known to have removed copies, right? And if they were copies, that would mean nothing known to have been removed from the archives was unavailable to the 9/11 Commission, right?
Yeah, right, Cyrus. Berger stole exact duplicates with no value because, um, well, who knows? But exact duplicates I tell you!
Cyrus--I take no position on Mr. Berger's activities; I just provided a link to the entire report for those who wanted to go into detail. I for one do not. The whole affair is, how to say, interesting and lends itself to all sorts of speculation. But I do agree that until someone nails the story down, there will remain lots of speculation but little hard evidence to go on.
Fen wrote:
And a followup report from Congressional Committe on Oversight and Government Reform:
This is a Republican staff report, not a congressional committee report. Is there any reason to believe that the report you reference isn't substantially tainted by partisanship?
“The 9/11 Commission relied on incomplete and misleading information regarding its access to documents Mr. Berger reviewed."
This is a poorly stated conclusion. What the report is attempting to say is that the 9/11 Commission had incomplete information about documents to which Berger may have had access. It does NOT say, as you imply, that the 9/11 Commission had incomplete information about alleged offers of bin Laden by the Sudanese. Therefore, this citation isn't at all relevant in the context of our discussion.
“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."
It's quite true that we do not know if anything was lost. Hillman has stated very clearly that of the known documents removed and destroyed by Berger, no original material was lost (including copies with notations). However, this citation proves my point; we have no factual basis for assuming that Berger successfully destroyed material that was therefore unavailable to the 9/11 Commission.
Since we now all agree with my original claim (i.e., there is no factual basis for the claim that Sandy Berger concealed information from the 9/11 Commission regarding the alleged Sudanese offer of bin Laden), can we leave Pogo's conspiracy theory aside and move on to something more interesting?
Pogo,
Berger has stated his reasons for removing and destroying documents. Others have advanced different theories. I'm not particularly interested in the subject since it seems to be an absolute dead end for those interested in the truth of the matter and completely open-ended for the partisan hacks who want to mislead.
But based on what we know, the documents stolen and destroyed by Berger were copied from a hard drive. There was no original material on them. So yes, they were "exact duplicates;" that's what you get when you print from files on a hard drive.
I'm confident that this information will not keep you from fine tuning your Sandy Berger theory to fit with appropriately distorted and fabricated evidence. Best of luck with that.
Roger wrote:
Cyrus--I take no position on Mr. Berger's activities.
Well, I will then. Berger should have lost his security clearance permanently (rather than for 3 years), and should have served significant time in prison (rather than 2 years of probation and 100 hours of community service).
Berger committed a serious crime. We need to start enforcing serious penalties for public officials (e.g., Berger, Libby) who break the law.
Cyrus,
You're missing the point. Here was your statement:
No reliable evidence to support the claim. What does that mean to you? Or do you just skip the thinking part and simply repeat whatever Sean says?
The problem there is that Berger destroyed evidence, and investigator have been unable to establish what that evidence was or if it was duplicated elsewhere, so the fact that no "reliable evidence" was found does not necessarily indicate anything. We can take a good guess that the destroyed evidence was something incriminating to Berger and/or the Clinton administration, since Berger was willing to risk prison and other punishments in order to destroy it. It is true that we cannot rationally state "Clinton was definitely offered bin Laden by Sudan". But you're acting like the rational position is to believe that he WASN'T offered bin Laden, which is nonsense. The rational position is "we can't know, given the available evidence, if the offer was made or not".
Personally, given that the Clintonites have obvious reasons to lie and Sudan does not, and given that the Clintonites are engaged in a cover-up about *something* related to 9/11, I'm inclined to believe the story. My view is that people who destroy evidence related to their innocence or guilt are not entitled to presumption of innocence anymore.
Luckyoldson said...
If I told you once, I told you a thousand times...DON'T READ OR RESPOND TO MY POSTS.
You're obviously got some kind of problem if you think you can dictate my actions.
I DON'T care what you have to say about ANYTHING.
I never thought you did.
Maybe if you were to actually read a newspaper or a book...instead of listening to your radio buddies; Rush, Sean, Bill, Ann, etc.
I don't listen to any of those people on the radio. I listen to music on the radio. The fact that you assume that I'm a right-wing whatever just shows how loony you are. Conservatives aren't the only ones who find you are pathetic.
with executive privilege being invoked for damn near everything...including of all things, the tillman death (now why would his family want the truth about their son's death...and what could executive privilage possible have to do with it??)...the pentagon now asking for america to wait until november (what happened to september?)...and the people here are re-hashing the berger controversy???
and you wonder why i think most of your are morons??
justin,
if you care so little about what i have to say...why are you continuing to read my posts and responding?
as i said before, i could care less what you have to say about anything, and please...don't give me that crap that you don't listen to rush and the gang.
they're like gods to most of the people here.
buzz off.
Luckyoldson said...
if you care so little about what i have to say...why are you continuing to read my posts and responding?
The same reason you hang around here on a blog you HATE.
...don't give me that crap that you don't listen to rush and the gang.
If you want to believe that, there's nothing I can do to stop you. I don't listen to them. That's all I can say.
they're like gods to most of the people here.
Do you even read what you write? If I'm a Rush fan just because "most of the people here" are, then so are you.
buzz off.
After you.
Stop telling Justin he shouldn't comment! Justin is welcome to comment and you are not welcome to tell my commenters what they can and can't do. Argue your side of the issue.
Revenant wrote:
The problem there is that Berger destroyed evidence, and investigator have been unable to establish what that evidence was or if it was duplicated elsewhere, so the fact that no "reliable evidence" was found does not necessarily indicate anything.
Let's make this a little clearer. We don't know if anything was removed and destroyed by Berger beyond what has been accounted for. It's incorrect to imply that we know other materials were taken and destroyed. Berger, like others, had access to original material. We don't know if any original material is missing. Since we have no evidence that original material was removed and destroyed, there is no factual basis for assuming that it was.
We can take a good guess that the destroyed evidence was something incriminating to Berger and/or the Clinton administration, since Berger was willing to risk prison and other punishments in order to destroy it.
Again, this assumes that Berger destroyed original material. We have no evidence that he did.
It is true that we cannot rationally state "Clinton was definitely offered bin Laden by Sudan". But you're acting like the rational position is to believe that he WASN'T offered bin Laden, which is nonsense. The rational position is "we can't know, given the available evidence, if the offer was made or not".
No. The rational position is this:
Given the information we have, there is no reliable and credible evidence to support the claim that Sudan offered to expel bin Laden to the United States.
Personally, given that the Clintonites have obvious reasons to lie and Sudan does not...
Sudan has no reason to lie? Really?
Do you know that the United States categorized Sudan as a "rogue state" in 1993? Do you know the United States supported UN economic sanctions against Sudan in 1996 and imposed stricter sanctions in 1997 to punish Sudan for their support of international terrorism and human rights violations (see Executive Order 13067)? Is a government that supports terrorism and engages in genocide trustworthy? Do you honestly believe they had no reason to lie, even though they insisted on lifting of sanctions as a prerequisite for their cooperation in the fight against terrorism?
Clintonites are engaged in a cover-up about *something* related to 9/11, I'm inclined to believe the story.
I've seen no evidence that the Clintons are engaged in a cover-up. Given that the documents (that we know of) that were destroyed by Berger were copies, what "cover-up" do you imagine he was engaged in?
My view is that people who destroy evidence related to their innocence or guilt are not entitled to presumption of innocence anymore.
Of course, this isn't a question of Berger's innocence or guilt. This is a question of what conclusions we draw from the available evidence.
It seems to me that your conjectures take you very far out on a limb. First, you speculate that Berger removed and destroyed original material, although we have no evidence that he did so. Second, you speculate that this evidence is incriminating, and specifically so with regard to the alleged Sudanese offer. Again, we have no evidence that this is the case.
No offense, Revenant, but I suggest you take this theory to Althouse's more recent blog entry about nutty conspiracy theories. It belongs there, not here.
Ann,
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
I've never told Justin to not comment, only to ignore what I have to say if he finds me so "pathetic."
As far as I'm concerned he can fill the blog from top to bottom, but I find it rather strange that he continues to respond to my postings or to throw jabs.
*And it's nice of you to defend him, I'm sure he appreciates the
motherly touch.
Rev,
When you say: "Clintonites are engaged in a cover-up about *something* related to 9/11, I'm inclined to believe the story."
You actually believe, with all of the investigations we've had over the past 6 years...something wouldn't have surfaced?
C'mon...I know how much you hate the Clintons but this is rather difficult to comprehend at this late date.
Well, that's the impression I got. I'm seeing way too much personal shouting down. Try to stay on the substantive issue and not the person you're arguing with. There's too much clutter. It doesn't read well. It just looks like backbiting.
Ann,
I personally prefer front biting.
DON'T READ OR RESPOND TO MY POSTS
That doesn't mean I've never told Justin to not comment. It precisely means: Justin, don't respond to my posts.
However, I do love how the fascist weasels try to obfuscate and generally sound like ninnies when confronted with their own actions.
Cyrus -- Although I agree with most of what you say in seeking to tamp down baseless theories, I'm not sure your statement here...
Since we have no evidence that original material was removed and destroyed, there is no factual basis for assuming that it was.
... is a good summation of how the law treats destruction of evidence. Your position seems to be, since we don't know what Berger destroyed, we can't assume he destroyed anything, or draw any conclusions from the act of destroying.
If this was a real criminal investigation, the fact that he would destroy such materials is highly suggestive of intent to commit a crime, and could be construed as a crime in and of itself. I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that Berger was trying to affect the historical record about the subject at hand in an unethical way. I don't think it's unreasonable to infer what his general intent was, and then to ask questions about it. The burden is fairly shifted to Berger and his supporters to dispel such suspicions.
The "What evidence? I don't see any evidence" defense is disingenuous and too cute. Berger gave up his law license rather than answer questions about this. It is unfortunate he has taken an affirmative position that the truth about his actions will be hidden from scrutiny. Don't honor that position by rewarding him with the benefit of the doubt.
We don't know if any original material is missing. Since we have no evidence that original material was removed and destroyed, there is no factual basis for assuming that it was.
You've missed the point again. What is relevant is that there is no factual basis for assuming that the 9/11 commission got to see all the evidence pertaining to the Sudan accusation -- the fact that Berger destroyed SOME evidence prevents us from knowing what ALL of the evidence, taken together, would have said.
The only way we could still claim that we've seen all the relevant evidence is if we knew for a fact that Berger *didn't* destroy any unique data. We don't know that. In fact, since it is known that the documents had marginalia that was not duplicated elsewhere, we know the opposite -- we know that unique data was lost, just not what the data was.
This is a question of what conclusions we draw from the available evidence.
And as I noted, the conclusion we can reasonably draw from the available evidence is that the Sudan story is probably true. Either Sudan is lying or the Clintonites are; the latter have obvious reasons to while the former have no known reason to; and at least one member of the latter has engaged in criminal activity to destroy (sadly, unknown -- but then, that was the whole point) evidence relating to 9/11. If you had to bet money on whether or not the Sudan story was true, the smart money's on "yes".
I would further add that your version of the Berger story, cyrus, is this: Berger stole documents by concealing them in his pants, hid them, then destroyed them, despite the fact that there was no reason at all to do so, because copies of all the information existed.
The perps on "COPS" show more wits than that, and Berger is a very smart man. Show some common sense, if you have any.
Cheney To Take Over Presidency…While Bush Gets A Colonoscopy...
How does the doctor see around george's head???
John,
Thanks for your intelligent response. I have a few brief comments.
First, I've stated my position re: Berger's crime and penalty; I consider his crime extremely serious and believe his penalty is insufficient. I certainly don't give him any benefit of doubt. While it's true Berger avoided cross-examination by the Bar Counsel by forfeiting his license, he was questioned by the Justice Department and the FBI. I believe he was also later questioned by Inspector General Paul Brachfeld.
Considering that the documents we know of that were removed and destroyed by Berger were copies (and he knew they were copies), it's hard to tie the act we know he committed to a cover-up. After all, if you are trying to hide information, destroying infinitely reproducible copies isn't productive. It's very hard for me to extrapolate what crimes we know he committed to a cover-up. Given what we know, I'm quite willing to accept that there may be multiple explanations for his crime, and I accept that an attempt to change the historical record is one such explanation. However, I think it's quite a reach to claim to know which segment of the historical record he was seeking to change.
You wrote:
Your position seems to be, since we don't know what Berger destroyed, we can't assume he destroyed anything, or draw any conclusions from the act of destroying.
I would phrase this differently. It's not simply that we don't know what else Berger may have destroyed, we don't even know if anything else was destroyed. In other words, it's not as if there are missing original documents and we know that Berger had access to these documents. We simply don't have any indication that original material is missing. How do you accuse someone of the commission of a crime for which we have no factual basis of occurrence?
Obviously the end result of this is highly unsatisfactory. I don't understand how the National Archives operates without knowing if material is missing or not. I find that completely baffling. I hope this system has been or soon will be corrected.
seven,
are you really this stupid?
the comment was in response to justin complaining about about i say.
with that in mind...i told him that if that was the case...he shouldn't read the postings...not that he couldn't.
what are you missing??
duh.
Berger just held a press conference.
It turns out he was behind the Hindenburg disaster, the Lindbergh kidnapping, the sinking of the Lusitania, sold G. W. his coca and reefer, and is considering photographing Hillary's tits for the cover of the next issue of Rolling Stone.
And he wants to meet Jane.
Revenant wrote:
You've missed the point again. What is relevant is that there is no factual basis for assuming that the 9/11 commission got to see all the evidence pertaining to the Sudan accusation -- the fact that Berger destroyed SOME evidence prevents us from knowing what ALL of the evidence, taken together, would have said.
I haven't missed the point at all. Based only on what we know, Berger didn't destroy any original material. So we have no factual basis for asserting that the 9/11 Commission didn't see all of the available evidence. Saying that the Commission didn't see some of the evidence because Berger destroyed it is purely speculative.
In fact, since it is known that the documents had marginalia that was not duplicated elsewhere, we know the opposite -- we know that unique data was lost, just not what the data was.
This is a factually incorrect statement. I've addressed this previously. From the report of the Inspector General:
"There were not any handwritten notes on the documents Mr. Berger removed from the archives.
Again, we don't have any factual basis for believing that there was original material destroyed by Berger. More to the point, we have no factual basis for concluding that the 9/11 Commission didn't have access to all relevant National Archives material in reaching their conclusion that the Sudanese claim was not credible.
Either Sudan is lying or the Clintonites are; the latter have obvious reasons to while the former have no known reason to; and at least one member of the latter has engaged in criminal activity to destroy (sadly, unknown -- but then, that was the whole point) evidence relating to 9/11. If you had to bet money on whether or not the Sudan story was true, the smart money's on "yes".
What we know is that Berger destroyed copies. There is no factual basis for asserting that he destroyed evidence. So part of your premise is wrong.
Now, I have no understanding why you find the claims of a country that supports international terrorism and engages in genocide credible. However, that's your choice. I suspect your choice has more to do with partisanship than principle, but you are of course free to place your confidence in the institutions you find most trustworthy.
Berger stole documents by concealing them in his pants, hid them, then destroyed them, despite the fact that there was no reason at all to do so, because copies of all the information existed.
(One aside before I address the central point... For some reason, people love to refer to Berger putting documents in his pants. Is it somehow less thrilling to say that he hid the documents in his trouser pockets?)
The fact that the documents we know Berger destroyed were all reproducible copies does make the cover-up theory slightly less likely in my mind. Berger's explanation, while obviously self-serving, is at least logically consistent.
According to the FBI, "Berger was under constant supervision" on two earlier visits to the Archives and therefore the FBI concluded that no documents had been removed previously. Given this information, when do you believe original material was removed and what material might be missing?
Lucky,
Thanks for the heads up. No Rolling Stone for me next week.
cyrus,
And there was supposed to be a great fold-out with Bill, Hillary, Monica and even Vince.
Luckyoldson said...
with that in mind...i told him that if that was the case...he shouldn't read the postings...not that he couldn't.
No, you didn't. You said "DON'T READ OR RESPOND TO MY POSTS." That's not saying I "shouldn't", that's a command.
what are you missing??
Apparently, he's missing the part where you meant something completely different from what you wrote. You're the only mind reader here, Lucky.
duh.
No kidding.
Justin wrote:
No, you didn't. You said "DON'T READ OR RESPOND TO MY POSTS." That's not saying I "shouldn't", that's a command.
Justin, does Lucky have the power to enforce his "command?" Did you respect his "command" or did you respond multiple times anyway?
I don't see a problem here.
"Justin, does Lucky have the power to enforce his "command?" Did you respect his "command" or did you respond multiple times anyway? I don't see a problem here."
The problem is writing "meta" comments like this (and like this). Stay on topic. You're creating thread clutter. It's unreadable.
The problem is writing "meta" comments like this (and like this).
I've never seen you enforce this rule before, although your blog is littered with "meta" comments.
Stay on topic.
Since when have you required commenters stay "on topic?"
You're creating thread clutter. It's unreadable.
The Althouse blog is full of "thread clutter." Why has it suddenly become a problem worth noting here, in this context?
Why not make some specific rules, post them, and enforce them fairly? As I've noted before, your selective enforcement of your blog rules seems to be determined by the commenter, not the comment. If true, it's an unfortunate practice.
Justin,
Good Lord, I can't believe I have to do this...again...but here goes:
For the last time...and I want to be perfectly clear...'cause I know Ann holds you in high esteem...and I certainly don't her to be upset with little ol' me:
Soooooo...if you want to...you can read what I post...and even respond...but only if you want to...because, dammit...this is America and you're free to do as you please...and I don't want you to think that I'm, in any way, shape or form..."telling you what to do"...so...do whatever you want...it's up to you...okay??
cyrus pinkerton said..."As I've noted before, your selective enforcement of your blog rules seems to be determined by the commenter, not the comment."
Ya think...??
I'm not aware of any rules here. I think the general thrust of the unwritten constitution is:
1. Try to add something of substance.
2. Don't be an assclown.
It's too bad that not everyone can live up to this very low threshold of good behavior.
Seven Machos said.."Don't be an assclown."
If anyone knows the ins and outs of being an "assclown"...Seven would certainly qualify.
Seven, I agree, and would only add, under #2, that you shouldn't say things to people you wouldn't say to their face.
These things seem obvious, you would think. But, nooo...
Assclowns everywhere.
Some of these people are so stupid that, to borrow a line from Don Imus, it makes your hair hurt.
Some of them are not stupid but just rotten people with their own agenda that can make worthwhile communication among others nearly impossible.
One thing that this thread, among others, has taught me is that blog comments, as they are done here, are, in general, a useless waste of time. I've had my hopes raised recently by a couple of good threads on this blog, but then I'm brought back to reality by the garbage you see upthread here. The whiplash is killing me.
This blogger has some very pertinent thoughts about commenting. He solved his assclown problem by turning comments off, although he's looking for ways to encourage a flow of conversation without the heavy overhead of current comment moderation methods. Another blogger has some interesting ideas and information about new comment infrastructure that might help.
Those of us who have been around since the Usenet days keep hoping for those palmy times to somehow reappear. Like Charlie Brown with the football, we keep coming back for more, despite every evidence of how things will almost certainly turn out.
So, these threads are what they are. What they could be is something for others to create.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा