Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"There's an ethic here - that is of strict discipline, of not letting the
fact you're working on a political campaign start to color your actions when it comes to national security," Hunter said. The incident took place last October, before Berger was an advisor to Kerry. Nice try, though. a.. Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said more information was needed before judging Berger, but "obviously, the timing of it is not good" for Kerry. Obviously it's not. This "national security risk" was allowed to run free for 8 months by the Bush administration, who only thought to make any noise about it at all immediately befoe the D's convention. a.. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., called the news "surprising." He told Fox that "unless we learn otherwise, I have to assume that what Sandy said was right - that any removal of documents was inadvertent. But it is serious." Asked whether Kerry should dump Berger, the former rival said, That's Fox for ya......Berger resigned from the Kerry campaign several days ago, and now Fox wants to know whether Kerry should "dump" Berger. Fair and balanced? If they're going to be in the news business, they should start with "informed." That's up to John Kerry, but I'm sure he will stay on the team unless there's some charges that are proven that leads Senator Kerry to do otherwise." Horse manure! He already resigned! But millions of rw lemmings will wander around repeating that Kerry refuses to get rid of this guy........ a.. Democrat strategist Richard Goodstein insisted that Kerry should "absolutely not" boot Berger. "The documents that Sandy supposedly took were copies. There are copies elsewhere throughout the Archives and elsewhere in Washington, so it's not like he was trying to cover something up," Goodstein maintained to FNC. a.. However, Ben Ginsburg, national counsel for Bush-Cheney '04, said what mattered was whether Kerry benefited from Berger's actions. "That's an essential question that needs to be answered from the Kerry campaign: Did they benefit from documents that they should not have had?" a.. DEBKAfile reported: "Presidential challenger Kerry will have to think twice before attacking Bush on national security issues lest he lay himself open to reminders that a former Clinton aide and his own adviser was caught red-handed misappropriating classified materials that revealed how a Democratic president mishandled the threat of terror." a.. And then there's this tidbit: "Officials with the Bush-Cheney campaign point out that Berger gave a surprise background briefing to reporters on Feb. 27 on behalf of the Kerry campaign, in which he outlined airline security issues apparently drawn from the now-missing classified memos Berger is accused of removing from the National Archives," FNC reported. Oops: Kerry's campaign is already distancing itself from Berger. Handlers are emphasizing that the former national security bigwig was just "an informal adviser," not a paid official with the campaign. As for Berger's obvious angling for an invite to be CIA director in case of a Democrat victory in November, you can forget all about that now. Does it bother you at all to lie, or to spread lies? Berger resigned, several days ago. But as badly as the reactionary right wing is trailing in the poll, it's no wonder you resort to these desparate lies. http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... "There's an ethic here - that is of strict discipline, of not letting the fact you're working on a political campaign start to color your actions when it comes to national security," Hunter said. The incident took place last October, before Berger was an advisor to Kerry. Nice try, though. The fact that Kerry probably knew the incident took place last October, before Berger was an advisor to Kerry speaks volumes for John Kerry's "ethics". a.. Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said more information was needed before judging Berger, but "obviously, the timing of it is not good" for Kerry. Obviously it's not. This "national security risk" was allowed to run free for 8 months by the Bush administration, who only thought to make any noise about it at all immediately befoe the D's convention. Justice may be slow but relentless a.. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., called the news "surprising." He told Fox that "unless we learn otherwise, I have to assume that what Sandy said was right - that any removal of documents was inadvertent. But it is serious." Asked whether Kerry should dump Berger, the former rival said, That's Fox for ya......Berger resigned from the Kerry campaign several days ago, and now Fox wants to know whether Kerry should "dump" Berger. Fair and balanced? If they're going to be in the news business, they should start with "informed." It's not them, it is "we" who are know informed...as to Kerry's dump only AFTER the news has exposed Berger and therefore Kerry's use of him. Kerry Knew about this for 8 months but yet kept the thief whithin his inner circle. That's up to John Kerry, but I'm sure he will stay on the team unless there's some charges that are proven that leads Senator Kerry to do otherwise." Horse manure! He already resigned! Cite when But millions of rw lemmings will wander around repeating that Kerry refuses to get rid of this guy........ When exactly did Kerry dump Berger? a.. Democrat strategist Richard Goodstein insisted that Kerry should "absolutely not" boot Berger. "The documents that Sandy supposedly took were copies. There are copies elsewhere throughout the Archives and elsewhere in Washington, so it's not like he was trying to cover something up," Goodstein maintained to FNC. a.. However, Ben Ginsburg, national counsel for Bush-Cheney '04, said what mattered was whether Kerry benefited from Berger's actions. "That's an essential question that needs to be answered from the Kerry campaign: Did they benefit from documents that they should not have had?" a.. DEBKAfile reported: "Presidential challenger Kerry will have to think twice before attacking Bush on national security issues lest he lay himself open to reminders that a former Clinton aide and his own adviser was caught red-handed misappropriating classified materials that revealed how a Democratic president mishandled the threat of terror." a.. And then there's this tidbit: "Officials with the Bush-Cheney campaign point out that Berger gave a surprise background briefing to reporters on Feb. 27 on behalf of the Kerry campaign, in which he outlined airline security issues apparently drawn from the now-missing classified memos Berger is accused of removing from the National Archives," FNC reported. Oops: Kerry's campaign is already distancing itself from Berger. Handlers are emphasizing that the former national security bigwig was just "an informal adviser," not a paid official with the campaign. As for Berger's obvious angling for an invite to be CIA director in case of a Democrat victory in November, you can forget all about that now. Does it bother you at all to lie, or to spread lies? Berger resigned, several days ago. But as badly as the reactionary right wing is trailing in the poll, it's no wonder you resort to these desparate lies. http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 14:31:16 -0400, "mono sect" wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... "There's an ethic here - that is of strict discipline, of not letting the fact you're working on a political campaign start to color your actions when it comes to national security," Hunter said. The incident took place last October, before Berger was an advisor to Kerry. Nice try, though. The fact that Kerry probably knew the incident took place last October, before Berger was an advisor to Kerry speaks volumes for John Kerry's "ethics". Sir: Unless you possess some extraordinary powers of discernment, you have no way of knowing what Mr. Kerry knew or did not know. It is therefore not a "fact," as you aver. [elided] It's not them, it is "we" who are know informed...as to Kerry's dump only AFTER the news has exposed Berger and therefore Kerry's use of him. Kerry Knew about this for 8 months but yet kept the thief whithin his inner circle. Once again: you have no way of knowing; and your continuing assertion does not alter the fact that your premise (that Mr. Kerry "knew") is invalid. Most sincerely, W.T. Hatch |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
The fact that Kerry probably knew the incident took place last
The "fact" he "probably knew"........? This "national security risk" was allowed to run free for 8 months by the Bush administration, who only thought to make any noise about it at all immediately befoe the D's convention. Justice may be slow but relentless So who's the worst offender here? There's a possibility that Berger is a spy. Remote, but still possible. Bush and his boys knew about this last October. First offense: Berger possibly spying for Al Qaida. Second offense: Bush putting the security of the US *second* to his own political ambition by leaving Berger to run loose until the most politically opportune moment to reign him in. Neither individual gives a Schlitz about the safety and security of the US, only profit (Berger) and politics (Bush). Kerry Knew about this for 8 months but yet kept the thief whithin his inner circle. More details break between paragraphs? We progress for the "fact" that Kerry "probably knew" to a statement that he did, indeed, absolutely know. RW think at it's finest- make a wild assumption and then project additional wild assumptions from your own, initial guess. Horse manure! He already resigned! Cite when By "late last Tuesday", 4-5 days ago. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ent/2004-07-21 -berger-kerry_x.htm When exactly did Kerry dump Berger? http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ent/2004-07-21 -berger-kerry_x.htm |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Chuck put the tin foil hat back on the aliens are putting thoughts into your
head again. "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... The fact that Kerry probably knew the incident took place last The "fact" he "probably knew"........? This "national security risk" was allowed to run free for 8 months by the Bush administration, who only thought to make any noise about it at all immediately befoe the D's convention. Justice may be slow but relentless So who's the worst offender here? There's a possibility that Berger is a spy. Remote, but still possible. Bush and his boys knew about this last October. First offense: Berger possibly spying for Al Qaida. Second offense: Bush putting the security of the US *second* to his own political ambition by leaving Berger to run loose until the most politically opportune moment to reign him in. Neither individual gives a Schlitz about the safety and security of the US, only profit (Berger) and politics (Bush). Kerry Knew about this for 8 months but yet kept the thief whithin his inner circle. More details break between paragraphs? We progress for the "fact" that Kerry "probably knew" to a statement that he did, indeed, absolutely know. RW think at it's finest- make a wild assumption and then project additional wild assumptions from your own, initial guess. Horse manure! He already resigned! Cite when By "late last Tuesday", 4-5 days ago. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ent/2004-07-21 -berger-kerry_x.htm When exactly did Kerry dump Berger? http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ent/2004-07-21 -berger-kerry_x.htm |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bert Robbins wrote:
Chuck put the tin foil hat back on the aliens are putting thoughts into your head again. "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... The fact that Kerry probably knew the incident took place last The "fact" he "probably knew"........? This "national security risk" was allowed to run free for 8 months by the Bush administration, who only thought to make any noise about it at all immediately befoe the D's convention. Justice may be slow but relentless So who's the worst offender here? There's a possibility that Berger is a spy. Remote, but still possible. Bush and his boys knew about this last October. I'm more concerned about the Bush Administration's utter failure to keep the lid on at Los Alamos. "Disappearing" nuclear secrets is a bit higher on the scare list than Sandy Berger's walking off with copies of memos he probably wrote. -- A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush; A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Bert Robbins wrote: Chuck put the tin foil hat back on the aliens are putting thoughts into your head again. "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... The fact that Kerry probably knew the incident took place last The "fact" he "probably knew"........? This "national security risk" was allowed to run free for 8 months by the Bush administration, who only thought to make any noise about it at all immediately befoe the D's convention. Justice may be slow but relentless So who's the worst offender here? There's a possibility that Berger is a spy. Remote, but still possible. Bush and his boys knew about this last October. I'm more concerned about the Bush Administration's utter failure to keep the lid on at Los Alamos. "Disappearing" nuclear secrets is a bit higher on the scare list than Sandy Berger's walking off with copies of memos he probably wrote. Then I guess you were concerned about the Clinton Administration's utter failure to keep the lid on Los Alamos. At least the Bush Administration wasn't giving away missle technology to the ChiCom's. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT--Not again! More Chinese money buying our politicians. | General |