Originally posted by: alchemize
Harvey is the ultimate Sandy Berger apologist. Don't believe me?
Exhibit A: Harvey's 2004 thread
Sandy Berger CLEARED of Document Theft.
With this PRICELESS gem of a comment: "With all the roar and thunder from the far right when they were up in arms about the original allegations, the current silence is deafening."
Exhibit B: Harvey's ignoring my 2005 thread
Sandy Berger to be CONVICTED of document theft
With my priceless gem of a comment: "Silence from the left, especially the OP, will be quite deafening"
Harvey is despicable, the ultimate apologist, the ultimate partisan hack.
BUAHahahahaha! In your first link,
Exhibit A: Harvey's 2004 thread
Sandy Berger CLEARED of Document Theft., you were in such a hurry to twist reality to make a point that all you could do was you post the last sentence of my post. Here's the entire post with my closing sentence in context:
Originally posted by: Harvey
Buried somewhere deep in the N.Y. Times was the embarrassing revelation that investigators from the National Archives and the Justice Department have concluded nothing is missing and nothing in the Clinton administration's record was withheld from the 9-11 Commission. Subscription required to access the Times site, but the article is quoted on several online sources,
including this one:
Officials looking into the removal of classified documents from the National Archives by former Clinton National Security Adviser Samuel Berger say no original materials are missing and nothing Mr. Berger reviewed was withheld from the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Several prominent Republicans, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, have voiced suspicion that when Mr. Berger was preparing materials for the 9/11 Commission on the Clinton administration's antiterror actions, he may have removed documents that were potentially damaging to the former president's record.
The conclusion by archives officials and others would seem to lay to rest the issue of whether any information was permanently destroyed or withheld from the commission.
Archives spokeswoman Susan Cooper said officials there "are confident that there aren't any original documents missing in relation to this case." She said in most cases, Mr. Berger was given photocopies to review, and that in any event officials have accounted for all originals to which he had access.
That included all drafts of a so-called after-action report prepared by the White House and federal agencies in 2000 after the investigation into a foiled bombing plot aimed at the Millennium celebrations. That report and earlier drafts are at the center of allegations that Mr. Berger might have permanently removed some records from the archives. Some of the allegations have related to the possibility that drafts with handwritten notes on them may have disappeared, but Ms. Cooper said archives staff are confident those documents aren't missing either.
Daniel Marcus, general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, said the panel had been assured twice by the Justice Department that no originals were missing and that all of the material Mr. Berger had access to had been turned over to the commission. "We are told that the Justice Department is satisfied that we've seen everything that the archives saw," and "nothing was missing," he said.
Berger did remove photocopies of some documents, which was wrong, but these are documents his current and previous positions allow him to access. It is highly doubtful he did anything with them that compromised national security.
With all the roar and thunder from the far right when they were up in arms about the original allegations, the current silence is deafening.
- The report explicitly states: "Officials looking into the removal of classified documents from the National Archives by former Clinton National Security Adviser Samuel Berger say no original materials are missing and nothing Mr. Berger reviewed was withheld from the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks."
- In that same post, I said "Berger did remove photocopies of some documents, which was wrong..."
Where did I say I condoned or excused Berger's actions or any other crimes by anyone in the Clinton administration or anyone else?
Then, you accuse me of some further horrendous hypocrisy because I didn't happen to post in the thread at your second link? In some terminology that doesn't make you a priority candidate for a straight jacket, please explain how something I DIDN'T say in some thread in which I DIDN'T participate in 2004 makes me a hypocrite. :roll:
Thanks for proving how much of a lying, ass licking neocon Bushwhacko sycophant you are.
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
You are being hypocritical Harvey. There is no way of telling if the documents that Berger attempted to "rescue" from the archives would have led to anything criminal.
Actually, yes, there is. In his pathetic attempt to discredit me by quoting a single sentence, out of context, from your fellow ass licking Bushwhacko sycophant,
alchemize was nice enough to post a link to one of my threads from 2005. The entire article I quoted directly refutes your suggestion that Berger did ANYTHING to ANY documents other than illegally remove COPIES from the archives. Do you have ANY evidence to prove ANYTHING to the contrary?
If so, post it. If not, please STFU.
Your complete dismissal and "But, but, it ain't as bad as Bush..." is a pretty sad condoning of Berger/Clinton doing what you despise Bush and company of doing. Not that I don't agree that there are degrees of crimes....but you seem to be an apologist in this case.
I'll ask you the same question I asked
alchemize -- Where did I say I condoned or excused Berger's actions or any other crimes by anyone in the Clinton administration or anyone else?
Originally posted by: Skitzer
Your BDS greatly amuses me.
Read my sig, and :lips: my
(_!_).
Do you honestly think the Clinton Administration was lilly white?
Are you reading challenged? I said,
If you can prove that Sandy Berger, or any other member of the Clinton administration violated the U.S. Constitution or statutory laws or any international laws or treaties, I'm in favor of prosecuting them, as well.
Originally posted by: Skitzer
I was just pointing out that important information has also been destroyed by others besides the Bush traitors and murderers (LOL).
The article linked in my 2005 post indicates you failed dismally to prove anything other than that the best you can do is laugh (LOL) at Bushwhacko crimes like
TORTURE,
MURDER and
TREASON. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:
Originally posted by: alchemize
<drool snipped>Wait a second here, there's only a burden of proof when it's a previous (democrat) administration? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
You're making allegations that have already been discredited or adjudicated. So yes, the burden is on YOU to provide credible evidence of any further crimes. I'll settle for the "generic" you. If anyone has credible evidence of crimes under ANY administration, I'm in favor of holding those accused to account for their alleged crimes.
And the best yet another pissant Bushwhacko psycho can do is laugh at
TORTURE,
MURDER and
TREASON. Pa-fscking-thetic!
It's well known Clinton did the same thing as Bush did in regards to renditions. Where did your bolded venom go, you SICKENING PARTISAN HACK? Not included in your mumbling footnote, eh?
"Well known" by WHOM? Proven by WHAT? :roll: