Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neeka who wrote (55580)	7/22/2004 2:55:48 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793883

Make that a ditto, M~ HOW DARE Berger and his apologists blame someone else for HIS illegal behavior??? And to blame the White House is simply laughable....Except no one is laughing. Except Clinton, of course. (Last night, Clinton thought this was a funny story)... And of course, Clinton said he had known of the situation for several months. Wonder if he told the Kerry camp? The real question is WHY was Berger taking the 1999 reports (the after reports that Richard Clarke wrote)...not only once but twice. What was he trying to hide, and who was he trying to protect???? And the even bigger question is WHY was Berger vetting his own papers and those of Clinton for the 9-11 Commission??? What other things did he "inadvertently" steal from the National Archives, and what papers did he destroy????????

To: Neeka who wrote (55580)	7/22/2004 4:03:35 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 793883

I concur M. It seems there is far more to it than "sloppy" & "inadvertent" mistakes. Unfortunately, most of America doesn't have a clue about most of this. My local rag finally had a blurb on Berger today. It was liberal spin lacking any detail. If that was the first time you had heard about it, you'd think the only issue was a violation of protocols relating to classified documents, nothing more. In fact this article spent more time denigrating the Bush Admin than reporting the Berger story. In the 2nd paragraph they were already raising speculation it was a Republican leak. They went on to discuss anticipation of the release of the 9/11 report to provide more evidence proving the Bush Admin failed to stop 9/11 & other terror attacks & that they were wrong in its' case for Iraq. All done dripping with liberal bias. Keep in mind this article was about the investigation into Berger's activities. My rag also continues to report as hard news that the Butler Report & the Senate Intelligence Committee Investigation provided proof of Bush Admin shenanigans. I think this newspaper reaches a half million folks a day, perhaps more. It is like a lot of outlets throughout the US. It gets most of its national & global news from the Times, AP, Reuters, etc. Now look at what the blogs have reported about the media coverage of the Berger story. How can we expect a full accounting if most folks don't even know there is an issue significant enough to demand one over? Right now the seriousness of the Berger story is a lonely tree in the woods for most of America.