more junk about sandy berger
i'm a little confused. no i'm not. yes i... well, anyway. i'm really amused by this whole political marionette act going on in washington over the berger national archives theft, and the predictable damage control being foisted on america. i listened to NPR's All Things Considered okok everybody stand back. i will not give up my right wing wacko card just because there isn't anything else to listen to in Jamison Canyon while the CalTrans folks hold traffic for 45 minutes to blow up a chunk of the cliffside along the road at 0-dark-30.
anyway, they had some left wing wonk who's name i don't remember, and an NYTimes columnist David Brooks . i like brooks, even thought i don't always agree with him.
welcome to short attention span theater. now what were we talking about??? oh yeah, sandy berger...
go figure.. question is: what's up with the sandy berger story... left wing wonk replies instantaneously with "I'm really concerned with the timing of the release of this story." well la te frikin' da, buddy. someone in washington was probably afraid this was going to get swept under some dusty back room dealing carpet. that's NOT the issue. the issue is: what did he take, did kerry know he took it, and what the hell was this information being used for and/or hidden from us for? i for one would like to see what it is that's so all fired important that berger risked JAIL time (apparently he assumed kerry would win, and pardon him like his boss did a bunch of other miscreants just prior to watch turnover). silly man. reminds me of the HUGE hullabaloo over the PDB (pres. daily briefing for those not in the know). WHO KNEW, and WHAT WAS IN IT, and WHY ARE YOU AFRAID TO SHOW IT TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC... sound familiar? the 911 commission's dim-o-rats really thought they had the smoking gun, and it was loaded with blanks. i guess it's payback time, eh? and i really am interested in what it was that berger risked all to hide from the american public. what was he thinking?
and here's a triple article (talks about 3 things, and they are things i've droned on and on about). oh by the way, it's from the New Republic. an interesting sidenote: i notice that the old church i used to belong to (Presbyterian)is really performing unnatural sex acts with canines. siding with the Palestinians? no wonder so many of the folks i used to go to church with have bailed. me, i lost any faith in the church (and all religion for that matter) when a very respected missionary lady came to our church youth group, and spent an hour and a half reviling the catholic church and all of it's members (one of whom was my very bestest best friend .. well, i was 13 at the time). WAKE UP you church people out there...it's all just a way to control your mind.
anyway, they had some left wing wonk who's name i don't remember, and an NYTimes columnist David Brooks . i like brooks, even thought i don't always agree with him.
welcome to short attention span theater. now what were we talking about??? oh yeah, sandy berger...
go figure.. question is: what's up with the sandy berger story... left wing wonk replies instantaneously with "I'm really concerned with the timing of the release of this story." well la te frikin' da, buddy. someone in washington was probably afraid this was going to get swept under some dusty back room dealing carpet. that's NOT the issue. the issue is: what did he take, did kerry know he took it, and what the hell was this information being used for and/or hidden from us for? i for one would like to see what it is that's so all fired important that berger risked JAIL time (apparently he assumed kerry would win, and pardon him like his boss did a bunch of other miscreants just prior to watch turnover). silly man. reminds me of the HUGE hullabaloo over the PDB (pres. daily briefing for those not in the know). WHO KNEW, and WHAT WAS IN IT, and WHY ARE YOU AFRAID TO SHOW IT TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC... sound familiar? the 911 commission's dim-o-rats really thought they had the smoking gun, and it was loaded with blanks. i guess it's payback time, eh? and i really am interested in what it was that berger risked all to hide from the american public. what was he thinking?
and here's a triple article (talks about 3 things, and they are things i've droned on and on about). oh by the way, it's from the New Republic. an interesting sidenote: i notice that the old church i used to belong to (Presbyterian)is really performing unnatural sex acts with canines. siding with the Palestinians? no wonder so many of the folks i used to go to church with have bailed. me, i lost any faith in the church (and all religion for that matter) when a very respected missionary lady came to our church youth group, and spent an hour and a half reviling the catholic church and all of it's members (one of whom was my very bestest best friend .. well, i was 13 at the time). WAKE UP you church people out there...it's all just a way to control your mind.
posted by bothenook at 02:32
3 Comments:
It is, admittedly, from a rather different slant than the one you hold, but there's a decent collection of links/citations about the Berger story here:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230001
Oh, and I'm posting anon. b/c I don't have a blogger username--but this is Ryan. And I'll just add that I miss seeing you at the old haunt. Hope all is well with you and yours. --RJ
good link, thanks. i quote "the legal issue for Berger largely will rest on his claim that he removed copies of classified documents by accident. Berger's lawyer told the Times that the removal of handwritten notes is a "technical" violation;" well, i have to disagree with the analysis of this being a "technical" violation, but that's because not only was berger the nsa at one time, and HEAVILY brought up to speed on security requirements, classified is classified, and if you make notes from classified documents, those notes are now classified. he knew that, ignored the rules, and is now paying the public price of thinking he got a bye.
on another note: hiya ryan. i miss most of the old crowd, a lot. but the once a week peek i take shows that the reasons i left are still rampant throughout the site; forums, comments, everywhere. i like a good political dustup as much as the next guy, but the tenor and tone of the attack posts have been a barrier. maybe after the election, and things settle down, i may wander back, but i don't know. i'm having a lot of fun with this blog thing. i may only have an audience of 2 or three (well, four, if i count myself!), but at least when there are posts here, even politcal smear posts, they are at least civil.
say hi to whomever you think appropriate.
nook
You're certainly right, my friend, that the Berger thing merits real investigation. Unfortunately, it seems like politics and partisanship on both sides will make any investigation more about spin than scrutiny. At the very least what he did was pretty stupid, for a guy who, as you point out, should surely have known better.
And you're certainly right about the continued (or really, even mnore pronounced) rancor over there. I don't know if you've noticed, checking in the way you do, but I'm tending to stay out of it more and more these days (comparatively, anyway). I do still post articles and links, since I've long felt that that's one way to leave others to deduce and decide things on their own, but the attacks, whether political or personal (or both), are getting pretty tedious when they're not actually upsetting. And yeah, I suspect it will stay that way at least until the elections. I don't blame you a bit for leaving it behind; I stick around to stay in touch with the friends I've made and to enjoy the diversion of the more frivolous forums, and things generally seem pretty mellow on the main board, so that makes it easier.
Anyway, I'm not trying to persuade you of anything, just saying hi and letting you know I miss you. Glad I found your blog here so I can say hi more often this way. Take care, Nookman--R
Post a Comment
<< Home