"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