Watergate democrat style
- Thread starter ctownguy
- Start date
kosar quote:"Jenna's ok, but i'd take Barbara (the young one, mind you) and her tongue anytime."
barbara has too much baby fat on her. gotta go with the leaner meaner twin of the two. but the niece, who is a model is "the bush of my choice".
barbara has too much baby fat on her. gotta go with the leaner meaner twin of the two. but the niece, who is a model is "the bush of my choice".
Watergate Democratic Style has turned into another Male Bonding Thread. remember the Britney, (I wouldn't touch her w/a 10 foot pole), Spears Thread? Hmmm- Yup. I still think after the 3-4th round it'd be ooooooooeeeeeeeeeeee- All Ashore thats going ashore! And I'll take whichever ones still breathing...
New Dr Suess Book- Docs in the Socks
New Dr Suess Book- Docs in the Socks
Could I, Should I,
Put Docs in my Socks
You can not put and should not
Put Docs in your Socks
You would get Put in Stocks
For putting Docs in your Socks
Notes in my pockets should be OK,
Notes in my Pockets, then sneak away
Notes in your pockets is just not the way,
If they catch you; they will put you Away
Docs in my socks and in my Pockets was Sloppy
It will cause harm for Kerry Flip Floppy
Docs in your Socks will get you in Jail
I wonder if Slick Willie will pay your Bail
I claim it was sloppy
And no fault of mine
Those Docs in my socks
Seemed OK at the time
I thought I would be
As slick as a Fox
Get clean away
With Docs in my Socks
I thought I was good
And left no trail
Now I have the FBI
Hot on my tail
Clinton is supportive
And well on my side
He should know
He has nothing to hide
Kerry is fuming
And made me step down
Why did he do this
That Flip Flopping Clown
Kerry should be supportive
Like Clinton my friend
That waffling sellout
Will pay in the end
They say it?s a scandal
They say I?m a Rat
This is no Scandal
And Michael Moore is not Fat
As Clintons top guy
I swore to protect
The lapse of Security
By this President Elect
The Docs exposed
What was failed to be done
In terrorist threats
Before 2001
We can?t rag on Bush
Without hiding our mistakes
That is why
The Docs I did take
New Dr Suess Book- Docs in the Socks
Could I, Should I,
Put Docs in my Socks
You can not put and should not
Put Docs in your Socks
You would get Put in Stocks
For putting Docs in your Socks
Notes in my pockets should be OK,
Notes in my Pockets, then sneak away
Notes in your pockets is just not the way,
If they catch you; they will put you Away
Docs in my socks and in my Pockets was Sloppy
It will cause harm for Kerry Flip Floppy
Docs in your Socks will get you in Jail
I wonder if Slick Willie will pay your Bail
I claim it was sloppy
And no fault of mine
Those Docs in my socks
Seemed OK at the time
I thought I would be
As slick as a Fox
Get clean away
With Docs in my Socks
I thought I was good
And left no trail
Now I have the FBI
Hot on my tail
Clinton is supportive
And well on my side
He should know
He has nothing to hide
Kerry is fuming
And made me step down
Why did he do this
That Flip Flopping Clown
Kerry should be supportive
Like Clinton my friend
That waffling sellout
Will pay in the end
They say it?s a scandal
They say I?m a Rat
This is no Scandal
And Michael Moore is not Fat
As Clintons top guy
I swore to protect
The lapse of Security
By this President Elect
The Docs exposed
What was failed to be done
In terrorist threats
Before 2001
We can?t rag on Bush
Without hiding our mistakes
That is why
The Docs I did take
There I go jumping the gun. I say throw his ass in prison. Then I find out he's being investiagted. Only.
Neither one of those gals. There's better then that out there. And Pepsi drinkers to.
Neither one of those gals. There's better then that out there. And Pepsi drinkers to.
well Mr. Burglar I mean Bergler errr Berger did resign from the Kerry campaign....
DJV watch what people do.....not what they necesarily say.....you might not be so many steps behind that way
DJV watch what people do.....not what they necesarily say.....you might not be so many steps behind that way
AR182 said:
AR,
It's not in my nature to be argumentative, but Jenna is the one that has a little(not much) baby fat going on. Barbara is almost too skinny, but still pretty hot. I think you might have them mixed up.
I agree with you on the niece.
A government official with knowledge of the probe said Berger removed from archives files all five or six drafts of a critique of the government's response to the millennium terrorism threat, which he said was classified "codeword," the government's highest level of document security.
And it was on multiple occasions:
After one of his visits to the Archives last fall, one of the government officials said, Berger was alerted to the missing documents and later returned some of the materials. On subsequent visits by Berger, Archives staffers specially marked documents he reviewed to try to ensure their return. But the government official said some of those materials also went missing, prompting Archives staffers to alert federal authorities.
Emphasis added. This might be a case of (rather serious) laxity, rather than ill-intent. But it's hard to see how this kind of a pattern could be "inadvertent," as Berger is claiming.
UPDATE: I work with classified documents and while it is true that violations of procedure are not uncommon, it is extremely rare, at least in my corner of the world, to see something like this. I can't even take a briefcase into the unclassified reading room at the National Archives, yet Berger is stuffing classified documents into a leather bag?! I know that the Clinton people were famous (infamous?) for lax document security, but I have trouble imagining that a former NSA can be this incompetent. Samuel L. Morison spent over a year in Federal prison for sending classified satellite photos of a Soviet carrier under construction to Jane's Defense Weekly and I don't see how what he did is any worse that what Berger has done.
I've gotten a lot of emails along these lines from federal employees who work with classified documents. It would be interesting to see a news story interviewing some people like that, and looking at what happens to worker-bee types who violate security this way.
MORE: I'm not the only one who's getting these emails: "I still haven't gotten a single email from someone who regularly deals with classified info who isn't scandalized by this. Meanwhile I get a half-dozen of these every hour or so."
And this summary of the Berger affair is worth reading, too: "Third, it appears that Berger's 'inadvertent' actions clearly aroused the suspicion of the professional staff at the Archives. Staff members there are said to have seen Berger concealing the papers; they became so concerned that they set up what was in effect a small sting operation to catch him. And sure enough, Berger took some more. Those witnesses went to their superiors, who ultimately went to the Justice Department."
But, reportedly, there was no surveillance camera.
UPDATE: Here's another report from someone who does research at the Archives:
Here is the kicker - You are not allowed to bring in briefcases, or binders, or even your own pens or pencils. You are not allowed to wear a jacket or clothing with more than the normal number of pockets. They are extra sensitive to loose clothing. I had some notes that I drafted before heading up (listing what I was looking for). Those were reviewed by security, time and date stamped, and logged in before I was allowed to go further than the front entry hall. The manila folder (not envelope) they were in was taken from me (I had the option of renting a locker for it, but chose to throw it out instead). When I left, I was searched (though they didn't pat me down) and the papers I had were checked to ensure they were the same ones I entered with.
Now, its true, Sandy Berger has a higher security classification than me. But what I find incredible, is that the protocols the press is reporting (that he could bring in a briefcase and note pads and pens) are significantly more lax than are applied to non classified materials made available to the general public.
Yes. And here's another worker-bee email:
Just to back up some of your other correspondents. I spent 27 years total in the AF - with a Top Secret clearance. I had at times, specific appended code word clearances, which are controlled on a strict need-to-know basis - because they often involve sensitive sources (say, you are getting data from a mole in the Itanian Gov. - that particular data would be graded TS and then given a code word to further identify it as very sensitive and to restrict access from those with just general TS clearances). In a nutshell, the security system from least classified to most classified was: Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, Top Secret codeword). When we worked on Top Secret codeword (it might read something like Top Secret Fishhook), it was in a vault and our notes were put in burn bags. We were not allowed to take any notes out -period. We clearly understood that you didn't screw around with Secret, much less TS or TS codeword. For us a slip-up meant the slammer. What Berger did is so far removed from accepted security procedure, that I can only see two possible explanations: dishonesty with an ulterior motive (political CYA, I would guess) Or he's crazy. There is no way a veteran in the security business doesn't understand the gravity of walking out with TS codeword data.
Doug Rivers
USAF Ret.
Did Sandy just think that he shouldn't have to follow the rules?
Reader Jon Henke is unhappy with the Archives staff:
In all the fuss about Berger's multiple inadvertent security breaches, why is nobody questioning the role of the security personnel, who--apparently--saw him hiding and walking out with documents on multiple occasions, yet never stopped him.
Certainly, I want to know why he did it, but I'm a bit more concerned that the personnel guarding our classified documents give violators a 4-5 instance head start before doing something about it.
And Michael Ubaldi writes:
It's worth noting, in light of appeals for us to give Berger "the benefit of the doubt," that the benefit of the doubt was given to Berger - by National Archives staff, the first time he got caught.
Indeed.
Glenn, I really must take great offense at both Claire Berlinski and Virginia Postrel. I handle tons of classified documents every day, and have for 27 years in the United States Navy. I do not ever forget that loose lips sink ships, and I do not think that the Berger the Bumbler theory has any credibility at all. Facts which oppose this theory are as follows: All of the drafts and the handwritten notes removed WERE ALL REGARDING THE SAME REPORT, the drafts of the after action report written by Richard Clarke regarding the millennium celebration terrorism threat. If he was just a bumbler, he would have removed various items on many different topics, not on all the same topic. And the fact that they were DRAFTS leads me to conclude that there were unedited passages in those drafts, which were probably more truthful than the final version, that probably made Berger or President Clinton or both look really bad. This would damage Berger's ability to obtain a high level job in the Kerry administration, further tarnish Clinton's reputation as a President, and invariably help George Bush. So, before the 9/11 commission could find them, Berger took the drafts, destroyed the offending passages and returned what was left. I really do not see how the bumbler theory makes any sense, and I highly object to the idea that people who work with very highly classified information simply forget the rules. Only someone who DOES NOT work with very highly classified information could possibly make that charge. My two cents, please do not use my name, workplace, or contact info if you use any of this on your website.
So noted.
And it was on multiple occasions:
After one of his visits to the Archives last fall, one of the government officials said, Berger was alerted to the missing documents and later returned some of the materials. On subsequent visits by Berger, Archives staffers specially marked documents he reviewed to try to ensure their return. But the government official said some of those materials also went missing, prompting Archives staffers to alert federal authorities.
Emphasis added. This might be a case of (rather serious) laxity, rather than ill-intent. But it's hard to see how this kind of a pattern could be "inadvertent," as Berger is claiming.
UPDATE: I work with classified documents and while it is true that violations of procedure are not uncommon, it is extremely rare, at least in my corner of the world, to see something like this. I can't even take a briefcase into the unclassified reading room at the National Archives, yet Berger is stuffing classified documents into a leather bag?! I know that the Clinton people were famous (infamous?) for lax document security, but I have trouble imagining that a former NSA can be this incompetent. Samuel L. Morison spent over a year in Federal prison for sending classified satellite photos of a Soviet carrier under construction to Jane's Defense Weekly and I don't see how what he did is any worse that what Berger has done.
I've gotten a lot of emails along these lines from federal employees who work with classified documents. It would be interesting to see a news story interviewing some people like that, and looking at what happens to worker-bee types who violate security this way.
MORE: I'm not the only one who's getting these emails: "I still haven't gotten a single email from someone who regularly deals with classified info who isn't scandalized by this. Meanwhile I get a half-dozen of these every hour or so."
And this summary of the Berger affair is worth reading, too: "Third, it appears that Berger's 'inadvertent' actions clearly aroused the suspicion of the professional staff at the Archives. Staff members there are said to have seen Berger concealing the papers; they became so concerned that they set up what was in effect a small sting operation to catch him. And sure enough, Berger took some more. Those witnesses went to their superiors, who ultimately went to the Justice Department."
But, reportedly, there was no surveillance camera.
UPDATE: Here's another report from someone who does research at the Archives:
Here is the kicker - You are not allowed to bring in briefcases, or binders, or even your own pens or pencils. You are not allowed to wear a jacket or clothing with more than the normal number of pockets. They are extra sensitive to loose clothing. I had some notes that I drafted before heading up (listing what I was looking for). Those were reviewed by security, time and date stamped, and logged in before I was allowed to go further than the front entry hall. The manila folder (not envelope) they were in was taken from me (I had the option of renting a locker for it, but chose to throw it out instead). When I left, I was searched (though they didn't pat me down) and the papers I had were checked to ensure they were the same ones I entered with.
Now, its true, Sandy Berger has a higher security classification than me. But what I find incredible, is that the protocols the press is reporting (that he could bring in a briefcase and note pads and pens) are significantly more lax than are applied to non classified materials made available to the general public.
Yes. And here's another worker-bee email:
Just to back up some of your other correspondents. I spent 27 years total in the AF - with a Top Secret clearance. I had at times, specific appended code word clearances, which are controlled on a strict need-to-know basis - because they often involve sensitive sources (say, you are getting data from a mole in the Itanian Gov. - that particular data would be graded TS and then given a code word to further identify it as very sensitive and to restrict access from those with just general TS clearances). In a nutshell, the security system from least classified to most classified was: Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, Top Secret codeword). When we worked on Top Secret codeword (it might read something like Top Secret Fishhook), it was in a vault and our notes were put in burn bags. We were not allowed to take any notes out -period. We clearly understood that you didn't screw around with Secret, much less TS or TS codeword. For us a slip-up meant the slammer. What Berger did is so far removed from accepted security procedure, that I can only see two possible explanations: dishonesty with an ulterior motive (political CYA, I would guess) Or he's crazy. There is no way a veteran in the security business doesn't understand the gravity of walking out with TS codeword data.
Doug Rivers
USAF Ret.
Did Sandy just think that he shouldn't have to follow the rules?
Reader Jon Henke is unhappy with the Archives staff:
In all the fuss about Berger's multiple inadvertent security breaches, why is nobody questioning the role of the security personnel, who--apparently--saw him hiding and walking out with documents on multiple occasions, yet never stopped him.
Certainly, I want to know why he did it, but I'm a bit more concerned that the personnel guarding our classified documents give violators a 4-5 instance head start before doing something about it.
And Michael Ubaldi writes:
It's worth noting, in light of appeals for us to give Berger "the benefit of the doubt," that the benefit of the doubt was given to Berger - by National Archives staff, the first time he got caught.
Indeed.
Glenn, I really must take great offense at both Claire Berlinski and Virginia Postrel. I handle tons of classified documents every day, and have for 27 years in the United States Navy. I do not ever forget that loose lips sink ships, and I do not think that the Berger the Bumbler theory has any credibility at all. Facts which oppose this theory are as follows: All of the drafts and the handwritten notes removed WERE ALL REGARDING THE SAME REPORT, the drafts of the after action report written by Richard Clarke regarding the millennium celebration terrorism threat. If he was just a bumbler, he would have removed various items on many different topics, not on all the same topic. And the fact that they were DRAFTS leads me to conclude that there were unedited passages in those drafts, which were probably more truthful than the final version, that probably made Berger or President Clinton or both look really bad. This would damage Berger's ability to obtain a high level job in the Kerry administration, further tarnish Clinton's reputation as a President, and invariably help George Bush. So, before the 9/11 commission could find them, Berger took the drafts, destroyed the offending passages and returned what was left. I really do not see how the bumbler theory makes any sense, and I highly object to the idea that people who work with very highly classified information simply forget the rules. Only someone who DOES NOT work with very highly classified information could possibly make that charge. My two cents, please do not use my name, workplace, or contact info if you use any of this on your website.
So noted.
Last edited:
Lots of interesting stuff developing on this and hard to seperate fact from fiction just now.
What I do find interesting is how diff medias are reporting with some on emphasis of ongoings and accusations and other trying to make it a timing issue on release of info.
I have to wonder if there is just one person that is more interested on when report was released vs what is in report regardless of which party was being accused.
From what I gather from quotes I've read this morning from the big 4 Hilliary-Bill--- Kerry & DJV
and several news media they think the big story here is timing on when info was released and not what occurred.
I find that interesting.
What I do find interesting is how diff medias are reporting with some on emphasis of ongoings and accusations and other trying to make it a timing issue on release of info.
I have to wonder if there is just one person that is more interested on when report was released vs what is in report regardless of which party was being accused.
From what I gather from quotes I've read this morning from the big 4 Hilliary-Bill--- Kerry & DJV
and several news media they think the big story here is timing on when info was released and not what occurred.I find that interesting.
kosar, my friend
i hope your kidding about being argumentative because i don't consider it to be.
i'm sure that you are right about which twin is thinner.
i tend to get "my bushes confused"
but then it doesn't matter once the light is off or after a downing a few, at least for me (lol).
as far as the berger matter.
i think it's discusting how each side is accusing each other of acting "below board"
this continuous of "gotcha politics" by both sides is hurting this country, but each side is so wrapped up in having power, they don't care.
sandy berger is a man who has served this country admirably over the years, i think everybody(politicians & media) should let this play out instead of speculating on what berger did.
i hope your kidding about being argumentative because i don't consider it to be.
i'm sure that you are right about which twin is thinner.
i tend to get "my bushes confused"
but then it doesn't matter once the light is off or after a downing a few, at least for me (lol).
as far as the berger matter.
i think it's discusting how each side is accusing each other of acting "below board"
this continuous of "gotcha politics" by both sides is hurting this country, but each side is so wrapped up in having power, they don't care.
sandy berger is a man who has served this country admirably over the years, i think everybody(politicians & media) should let this play out instead of speculating on what berger did.
Last edited:
AR I agree I said put him in prison. Then i find out he's not guilty yet. And then we find out they could have told us all this 8 months ago. I thought they had. Politics as usual? You may be right.
if this information was available 8 months ago...as Mr. Mcauliffe aledges...then why the heck was this clown still an advisor to Kerry?
two options:
1. Kerry and McCaullife are fools
2. It wasnt available 8 months ago
yet another lets throw the police in jail attempt similar to what every trial scheister lawyer does...the spin and dishonesty coming out of these fools mouths is almost as sad as what Burglar did
two options:
1. Kerry and McCaullife are fools
2. It wasnt available 8 months ago
yet another lets throw the police in jail attempt similar to what every trial scheister lawyer does...the spin and dishonesty coming out of these fools mouths is almost as sad as what Burglar did
ar182, well put as always.
dr. freeze, you are truly over the top. how would you like it if someone made it a point to regularly post denigrating the entire medical profession, and your character if you were a member of it? you strip any credibility from anything you have to say by the infantile, mean-spirited way in which you present it.
and speaking of what you have to say, let me see if i have this right. on the one hand we have this berger guy, some generic washington bureaucrat, who accesses documents that are accessible to half of dc's government nerd minions - classified documents, not top secret, not secret, but clasified (you do understand the difference, right?) worst case scenario is this geek smuggles out classifiied documents and feeds them to the democrats for partisan polital purposes. is that about it? have you been following the news of how the science geeks at los alamos have been handling classified info about nuclear assets? you maintain that this guy's offense is equivalent to the president of the united states organizing and carrying out a criminal conspriracy that burglarizes a private office building, solely for partisan political purposes, and then taping himself while committing felony obstruction of justice afterewards.
is that the legal analysis posited by the mind that abhors all lawyers? obviously, you're a credit to whatever medical institution that chose to honor such intellect with an md. god, that's scary.
dr. freeze, you are truly over the top. how would you like it if someone made it a point to regularly post denigrating the entire medical profession, and your character if you were a member of it? you strip any credibility from anything you have to say by the infantile, mean-spirited way in which you present it.
and speaking of what you have to say, let me see if i have this right. on the one hand we have this berger guy, some generic washington bureaucrat, who accesses documents that are accessible to half of dc's government nerd minions - classified documents, not top secret, not secret, but clasified (you do understand the difference, right?) worst case scenario is this geek smuggles out classifiied documents and feeds them to the democrats for partisan polital purposes. is that about it? have you been following the news of how the science geeks at los alamos have been handling classified info about nuclear assets? you maintain that this guy's offense is equivalent to the president of the united states organizing and carrying out a criminal conspriracy that burglarizes a private office building, solely for partisan political purposes, and then taping himself while committing felony obstruction of justice afterewards.
is that the legal analysis posited by the mind that abhors all lawyers? obviously, you're a credit to whatever medical institution that chose to honor such intellect with an md. god, that's scary.
