Berger is back...GW?

[s_dooley24]

Thought GW amongst others would enjoy this..

He?s back: Sandy Berger now advising Hillary Clinton

http://www.examiner.com/a-977346~He_s_back__Sandy_Berger_now_advising_Hillary_Clinton.html

 

[Chadman]

Does send a pretty poor message, no doubt. I would like to know specifically what he would be advising on, where he would be, etc. This forwards the idea he would be a key foreign policy advisor, and not sure that is the case - maybe it is.

He definitely is a successful politician with valuable experience, but considering her current place in the polls and stature in the party, would think this would only be a bad situation to bring on board. I personally think at face value it's a bad move, if nothing else. I can't see what positivity would outweigh the negativity that this will create.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

excerpt from above link--

The $64,000 question is what could have been so damaging to Bill that it was worth the risk?????


"Berger has admitted stealing documents from the National Archives in advance of the 9/11 Commission hearings in 2003. The documents, written by White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, were a ?tough review? of the Clinton administration?s shortcomings in dealing with terrorism, Clarke?s lawyer told the Washington Post.

On several occasions, Berger stuffed highly classified documents into his pants and socks before spiriting them out of the Archives building in Washington, according to investigators. On one occasion, upon reaching the street, he hid documents under a construction trailer after checking the windows of the Archives and Justice Department buildings to make sure he was not being watched.

Berger came back later and retrieved the documents, taking them home and cutting them up with scissors. Two days later, he was informed by Archive employees that his removal of documents had been detected.

?Berger panicked because he realized he was caught,? said a report by the National Archives inspector general, which also recounted his initial reaction. ?Berger lied.?

Berger also lied to the public, telling reporters he made an ?honest mistake? by ?inadvertently? taking the documents, which he blamed on his own ?sloppiness.? Bill Clinton vouched for the explanation for Berger, who served as his national security adviser.

Berger later conceded: ?I was giving a benign explanation for what was not benign.?

The Justice Department initially said Berger stole only copies of classified documents and not originals. But the House Government Reform Committee later revealed that an unsupervised Berger had been given access to classified files of original, uncopied, uninventoried documents on terrorism. Several Archives officials acknowledged that Berger could have stolen any number of items and they ?would never know what, if any, original documents were missing.?

At his sentencing in September 2005, Berger was fined $50,000, placed on probation for two years and stripped of his security clearance for three years"

 

[s_dooley24]

What bothers me is this...

"At his sentencing in September 2005, Berger was fined $50,000, placed on probation for two years and stripped of his security clearance for three years."

Security clearance is a big time privelage and definately not a right. He should never be allowed around confidential documents again. His complete disregard of the law and his privelaged access is un believable.

 

[THE KOD]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton engaged in a verbal tussle with a questioner over Iran Sunday at a town-hall style meeting after he said the New York Democrat had authorized the president to invade Iran.

Sen. Hillary Clinton campaigns in North Hampton, Iowa, Sunday.

At the event in North Hampton, Iowa, a questioner took issue with Clinton's recent Senate vote calling on President Bush to formally call the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. He argued that such a distinction confers the president with the ability to invade the country.

"Why should I support your candidacy . . . if it appears you haven't learned from your past mistakes?" Randall Rolph asked, referring to Clinton's vote to authorize the president to use military force against Iraq.

Clinton began by telling Rolph "the premise of the question is wrong," and argued the measure calls for the terrorist label so sanctions can be imposed. The sanctions, she also said, will "send a clear message to the leadership" and lead to stronger diplomatic efforts.

The Democratic presidential front-runner then concluded by suggesting the question was planted, saying, "somebody obviously sent it to you."


Rolph denied anyone had put him to the question.

"I take exception," Rolph fired back. "This is my own research. Nobody sent it to me, I am offended that you would suggest that."

"Let me finish," Clinton sharply responded, before saying "I apologize, I just have been asked the very same question in three other places."

Clinton then reiterated her position that the president does not have authority to launch an attack on Iran and said she was working on legislation with Democratic Virginia Sen. Jim Webb to put that into law.

When the questioner maintained the terrorist labeling authorized force, Clinton, sounding clearly irritated said, "I am sorry, it does not."

Rolph has a history of asking particularly pointed questions of candidates. He has asked questions in a similar fashion at events for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.
..............................................................

It really is scary to think about her in the highest office in the land. I doubt there is anyone , including Bill, that she will listen to once she gets in . Questions asked of her are planted :scared

 

[Chadman]

WASHINGTON (CNN) Rolph has a history of asking particularly pointed questions of candidates. He has asked questions in a similar fashion at events for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.
..............................................................

It really is scary to think about her in the highest office in the land. I doubt there is anyone , including Bill, that she will listen to once she gets in . Questions asked of her are planted :scared

Scary? Someone who can explain herself when pushed and deal with the issue? Why can't someone in this position get a little angry and then explain why? I think she shows a distinct difference from the current President, who cannot explain himself when he gets pushed on an issue, ever apologize (which Clinton clearly did) and then explain exactly why she was irritated.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would say that what she commented on was exactly the truth, and this guy is a plant, as you could surmise from the questions he asked of the candidates involved.

Hillary can handle herself, and especially as a female candidate for President, I think it's important that she shows how tough she can be...especially when she can explain it as well as she did here, and elsewhere.

Compared to the past years of Republican presidents in particular, this is a refreshing change. The Clintons are excellent communicators, and she is doing just fine along those lines, I would say. If this is the thing you are basing an opinion on her about, I think that's pretty weak.

The un-funny thing about this is, if she voted the other way, she'd be railed on by the right wing mouthpieces unmercifully...not to mention several in here. No doubt she will get the eternal ripping of people moving forward...and I think she'll handle it well.

 

[The Sponge]

Scary? Someone who can explain herself when pushed and deal with the issue? Why can't someone in this position get a little angry and then explain why? I think she shows a distinct difference from the current President, who cannot explain himself when he gets pushed on an issue, ever apologize (which Clinton clearly did) and then explain exactly why she was irritated.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would say that what she commented on was exactly the truth, and this guy is a plant, as you could surmise from the questions he asked of the candidates involved.

Hillary can handle herself, and especially as a female candidate for President, I think it's important that she shows how tough she can be...especially when she can explain it as well as she did here, and elsewhere.

Compared to the past years of Republican presidents in particular, this is a refreshing change. The Clintons are excellent communicators, and she is doing just fine along those lines, I would say. If this is the thing you are basing an opinion on her about, I think that's pretty weak.

The un-funny thing about this is, if she voted the other way, she'd be railed on by the right wing mouthpieces unmercifully...not to mention several in here. No doubt she will get the eternal ripping of people moving forward...and I think she'll handle it well.

Chad, i don't think it was a plant. I would have asked the same question because i have wondered why anyone would vote for this after the iraq fiasco. Its not like this isn't public knowledge. I would also like to ask her "Hillary with all the knowledge you have about this rotten Bush family, how in the world could you vote to let this pig go into Iraq without knowing he had an agenda? As for Scotty? This is what i mean when i say gullible. He is gonna be afraid of Hillary but Bush with his crew, who are robbing america blind, this is okay with him. Just priceless

 

[THE KOD]

As for Scotty? This is what i mean when i say gullible. He is gonna be afraid of Hillary but Bush with his crew, who are robbing america blind, this is okay with him. Just priceless

..........................................................


I voted for Bush. I admit it took me awhile to figure out he is a crook and worse.

The problem I have is that we know going in that Bill and Hillary are crooks. How many investigations, murders, scandals did we have with them in office.

We want more of the same. Just priceless.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

What bothers me is this...

"At his sentencing in September 2005, Berger was fined $50,000, placed on probation for two years and stripped of his security clearance for three years."

Security clearance is a big time privelage and definately not a right. He should never be allowed around confidential documents again. His complete disregard of the law and his privelaged access is un believable.

How pray tell did anyone get away with slap on the wrist?--He did forfeit his law license to avoid being cross-examined by the Board on Bar Counsel.

--and how did Billy Bob get out of ordeal unscathed--little doubt he was behind it.

Where was the press on that one?

Keep draining that swamp Hilliary

 

[buddy]

I voted for Bush. I admit it took me awhile to figure out he is a crook and worse.

The problem I have is that we know going in that Bill and Hillary are crooks. How many investigations, murders, scandals did we have with them in office.

We want more of the same. Just priceless.

Scott,

Psalm 14:3 ~ "They are all gone aside, they are [all] together become filthy: [there is] none that doeth good, no, not one."

I trust only the risen savior, Jesus Christ.

 

[djv]

That fellow in Iowa who asked question of Hillary I would guess was a plant. Problem his question is where almost 70%% of the country is against Iraq war. And sure don't want Bush to go completely nuts and jump in Iran. This election is getting easy to follow. You back the war, you loose.

 

[Chadman]

..........................................................


I voted for Bush. I admit it took me awhile to figure out he is a crook and worse.

The problem I have is that we know going in that Bill and Hillary are crooks. How many investigations, murders, scandals did we have with them in office.

We want more of the same. Just priceless.

Scott, I can certainly understand this perspective on the Clintons (and others). Have no problem with basing your vote on what you consider to be fatal-flaw issues along these lines. I just didn't care for the commentary about her not listening to anyone when she gets in. All in the same post as ripping on a possible advisor? Does that follow, really? If anything, I think Hillary to this point probably has been a little free-flowing with her positions based on listening to people. I hope she gets a little more strong if she does win the election, and I think she will. Bill Clinton was always considered (from what I know) to be a terrific listener. I think most attorneys by nature know that they have to listen - if nothing else to gain an advantage and be prepared.

 

[The Sponge]

..........................................................


I voted for Bush. I admit it took me awhile to figure out he is a crook and worse.

The problem I have is that we know going in that Bill and Hillary are crooks. How many investigations, murders, scandals did we have with them in office.

We want more of the same. Just priceless.

the problem is that we don't have a choice. ON one hand do you want more of the same with Rudy, or a possible change with Hillary. Me personally i wish somehow Edwards would step up. Im sick of the press basically making the choices for us by giving one individual all the air time. We are not the brightest of people and fall for this over and over again. The thought of Bill Clinton and father Bush holding hands all last year really bothers me. I know Smurph thinks this should be a done deal and an easy win for Hillary (and it should)but i just don't see it. Rudy will go down to his last breath with his shamefull manipulation of 9/11 and people in my mind will fall for it. Rudy was the Mayor for two attacks. Its the terrorist 2 and Rudy 0. why he keeps using this and the Dems failure to tear it apart is mind boggeling. Lets not forget the terror alerts that will somehow appear the months leading up to the election. It worked last time and i can't figure out where they went.:shrug: these guys are power hungry and will stoop to any level to get power and if that is scaring the shit out of everyone to get power they will do it.