Official 2004 US Elections Thread

Obi-Wan McCartney

It seems that whoever allegedly blew Valerie Plame's cover IF she was a covert agent (note, she is not confirmed to have been a covert agent, nor was she under the definition of the law) has a valid whistleblower defense for exposing what appears to be nepotism on the part of Valerie Plame.

The claims by Wilson have been refuted by the Senate Intelligence Committee's bipartisan report, and the Lord Butler report. In fact, Ms. Plame's memo refutes Wilson.

Thhere seems to be something very serious going on. This stuff just wasn't classified Top Secret - it was compartmented. If you look at the links in one of my earlier posts on this thread, in which I discussed classification, this means that the information involved is extremely sensitive. The words "exceptionally grave damage" seem pretty clear and understandable to me - and I would hope that a person who held the post of National Security Advisor would understand that as well.

I also have noted that the Kerry campaign pulled a major press release on terrorism shortly after the story broke. Why? Have some of his speeches/releases been using stuff Sandy Berger pilfered? Richard Nixon resigned before being impeached for far less, Obi-Wan McCartney. This makes the whole Valerie Plame flap look like peanuts. Terry McAuliffe is pretty brazen, but this is more of an effort to cover up the fact he and other Democrats have the crap scared out of them. The reports about what Berger did (stuffing documents in his socks - the multiple occasions of him doing this) have me convinced that some serious criminal acts have been committed, and that this is going to ripple through several high-ranking people in the Kerry-Edwards campaign.

Right now, it looks like the Democratic Party may have nominated a candidate who is willing to release information that could cause exceptionally grave damage to national security for political gain.

 

Maybe Congress should take a bigger hit? They do have responsibility for oversight after all.

I wonder how much work Burglar's paper shredder has had over the last six months?

I'm tired of hearing about Wilson. The guy's a damn liar who used his wife's position to get a job.

This might all be linked anyway.

*shreds another document*

Kerry.....the guy can't escape from Clinton's shadow. Matter of fact, he can't escape from anyone's.

 

Mr44

I find the "pre-buzz" stuff that Congress is going to take the blame to be a great relief.

I cannot overstate how much damage the Church and Pike Committees of the 1970s did to the intelligence community.

 

What I don't understand is, from a political standpoint, why would Terry McAuliffe even want to file the FOI request?

To me, it would seem like the DNC would want to distance themselves as much as possible from the entire affair.

Now, with McAuliffe's request, the DNC just offically linked themselves to Berger, even if no such link actually exists.

It just doesn't make sense.

It seems like everyone involved is taking pages out of Nixon's own playbook on "how not to run a break-in and cover up."

 

McAuliffe is the Clinton's puppet.

Nixon: I'm not a crook."

Berger: Well....I.....it depends on what the meaning of the word "crook" is.....

 

I agree with you Mr.44, the whole mess is so stupid and absurd. Why do politicians like Nixon, Clinton and Berger (and maybe even Kerry) think they can get away with it, when they never do?

 

Why? Extreme arrogance.

A belief that your own **** don't stink.

 

All I know is that I better see "Fahrenheit 9/11: The Archival Edition" coming out soon..

I mean, if a simple golf game can be turned into sheer comedy gold, I can only imagine what footage of a former NSA rapidly stuffing secrets down his pants would look like.

And based on the filmmaker's signature selective editing, I'd bet it could be made to look like Berger was shredding the actual Constitution in no time..

 

Wait I thought in the Special Archival Edition he was going to make Bush shoot first.

 

This thing is making Hans Blix and the UN Keystone Kops, by comparison, look like the competent and consummate professionals they were not.

This would be incredibly laughable if the implications weren't so serious. (Just when I was getting bored with this election, too.) As I said, I am willing to give some benefit of the doubt, and I don't think there was any grand conspiracy, but honestly ....

Maybe we can get a Mel Brooks satire of the whole thing going. Mel would be a good Sandy Berger, or, if he weren't dead, Peter Sellers (no relation to me).


EDIT: Heh, SLR, just got the joke. Maybe we can also look forward to some reworked musical numbers.

 

sellars, well he should be assumed innocent of any formal charges.......in fact, I'd be surprised if the guy is charged at all.

Still, the guy was "just sloppy" for putting documents in his pants and socks?!

This whole story boggles the mind. What was he thinking? Was he doing it at someone else's behest? What was in those classified documents that he "lost"?

 

I had forgotten all the security issues Mr44 mentioned earlier. I know I have taken documents from state agency files on accident when making numerous copies at times, but they were returned once the mistake was discovered, and the documents were involving pretty mundane things and there was no agency policy in place regarding the examination of the files and taking them apart for copying, etc.

I agree, ShaneP ... nothing will come of this except that it has given most of us a laugh, and it has gotten conspiracy mongers in a tizzy.

 

You know, that argument really bugs me.

Kerry wants to be President. Shouldn't we hold him up to the same standard as Bush? Or will you suddenly up the standard for him should he be elected? If you see a flaw in his character or behavior before the election that meets your lower standard, would it suddenly become a problem were Kerry elected? Somehow, I doubt it.

Except they aren't, Kimball. The so-called "liberal" media has been far less scathing of Bush than they were of his predecessor, or his would-be challenger. Mr. Bush gets away with things. The media reports something, and then it dies. No-one has stood up to this white house's penchant for simply repeating "we're right, you're wrong" over and over again until the people asking questions simply go away.

What really bugs me is that already, republicans are rushing to tie Berger's actions directly to Kerry, while a crime of even greater magnitude, the leaking of the name of a CIA operative in what truly looks to be retaliation, has been quietly buried by the Justice Department. Berger's actions were foolish, but I'm witholding judgement on the criminal aspect until I know more.

But leaking an agent's name? That could get the person in question killed-and where has that investigation gone? Into the pit of forgotten allegations, of which this administration has plenty.

Iraq's WMD? Forget it. North Korea's? Forgotten, it seems. Iran's potential connection to the 9/11 hijackers? We'll see what becomes of this, but in light of Iraq, it will probably be nothing.

Oh yeah, and Afghanistan. That bin Laden guy. What about him? When was the last time his name passed Bush's lips?

My point is that they aren'theld to the same standard. When a democrat fouls up, it's big news nowadays. When a republican does, even the top republican, it's big news for....a day. Maybe two. Then it just goes away.

I don't mind telling you, it's extremely frustrating seeing this double-standard played out day after day.

Kerry should be held to the same standards as Bush. They both want the same job for the next 4 years, after all. Which ever one is better qualified should get the job, but you can only determine the better qualified if you look at them by the same standards.

I couldn't agree with you more. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the case. Where Mr. Kerry is concerned, a lot of cheap shots have been taken. His hair, he looks french, he's a "rich elitist" (as if Bush isn't). Frankly, I don't feel that Mr. Bush has been treated all that unfairly at all.

Just the opposite, in fact.

Jedismuggler-

Using this information for political gain? I doubt that very much. Not only would that be blatanly illegal, it would surely cost Kerry everything if it were true, and I simply do not believe that he is stupid enough to jeopardize everything in such a foolish manuever. I wouldn't accuse him of such a serious crime without proof; doing so only makes one look extremely biased and partisan.

However, I do recall that secret democratic party documents were taken by an aide to a republican senator and used for political gain, were they not? Not a risk to national security, of course, but since we're talking about dirty politics......

Peace,

V-03

 

Well, after six months of scandal, secrecy, and insider criticism, I suppose its only natural for the conservative crew to jump all over it in a way that resmebles how we liberals jumped over a half dozen Bush administration fumbles.

Smuggler, please, quit acting like this is akin to giving terrorists our nuclear launch codes, a little perpsective here! Mr. 44, what do YOU think is the worst case scenario here? I mean in terms of national security. It has implications and I grant you that Smuggler has grounds to make such claims, but considering all the shady stuff going on around the Iraq war, it seems pretty hypocritical to think Bush a saint yet go off the deep end on Kerry.

 

Especially when Kerry didn't do it.

 

Mr. 44, what do YOU think is the worst case scenario here?

Well three things really. 1 really concerns me, and 2 would simply represent dirty politics.

1)What concerns me, I mean really worries me, is that Berger was offically censured for this exact behavior before, by the 1999 Cox Congressional investiagtion report, which covered the Chinese nuclear scandal.

To recap:

Back between 1996-1998, the Chinese government was provided with the plans for 7 US nuclear warheads, including the then brand new W-88 minature nuclear warhead.

Setting aside the allegations that Clinton was paid $300,000 dollars to allow Liu Chaoying to tour the White House, Berger was offically faulted in the report.

The Senate investigation, detailed in the Cox report, found out that Berger was briefed as far back as April, 1996, that US nuclear secrets had been compromised at Los Alamos.

However, he failed to inform Clinton until 18 months later, and the government took no offical action until 1998, at which time security was finally tightened.(resulting in the arrest of Wen Ho Lee)

Even though Berger's actions were found to be grossly incompetent, they were simply dismissed as "sloppiness," and Clinton took no offical action against him.

Now, either Berger was, and now is, the most incompetent National Security Advisor the US has ever seen, or it is all an act, and he is just that good.

I truly hope that he didn't actually sell these reports to Islamist terrorists, but given his connection to the past Chinese scandal, who knows?

2)As I originally thought, Berger took these reports to save face for Clinton and/or Clarke, because something in them put the past administration in a negative light.

I'm less concerned with this option, because really, who cares if Clarke's story is contradicted?

3)After seeing JS's illustration that Kerry's anti-terrorism plan is now removed from his offical website, it could be possible that Berger gave this information to Kerry so he could use the weaknesses against Bush.

Again, nothing points to this option besides the fact that the link has been removed from Kerry's site.

 

BTW, here is a link to the declassified version of the Cox report.

It is a hefty document, but well worth the information within:

HOUSE REPORT

 

Mr44, did you just link to 18 pdf files??

 

Yeah, well, I did say it was hefty...

You can't really look at it as 18 pdf files, but rather 13 chapters, with indexes...

Besides, all that it basically says is that the FBI wanted to charge Berger with espionage back in 1999, but they didn't have enough evidence, so it was all dismissed as "sloppiness."

Which sounds eerily familiar again, doesn't it?

OK...Here is a condensed MSNBC version of the report that I found:

Here

 

Regarding the Berger situation, the following is from David Gergen, in an interview on CNN:

-----------------------
BROWN: We're joined now from Cape Cod, and we suspect his summer vacation, by David Gergen who is a colleague of Mr. Berger's and, of course, has been a distinguished adviser to four presidents, President Nixon, Ford, Reagan and President Clinton. Mr. Gergen currently teaches at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government and we are always pleased to see him.

Well, well, well, David, what do you think we have here?

DAVID GERGEN, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: Well, Aaron, I must tell you to underscore it in the beginning, I am a friend of Sandy Berger's and I have utmost faith in his integrity and believe he has served this country enormously well. He's one of the heroes in the war on terrorism in my book. Let me just say I think this has been blown way out of proportion and it is much more innocent than it looks.

Let's get a couple of things very clear. In late 1999, as the millennium celebration approached, the United States had a lot of warnings that terrorists were about to strike.

Sandy Berger went into a bunker for three or four nights, 24 hours a day practically, working with a team and they thwarted that terrorism, those attempted terrorist attacks. One of them was going to be to take out the Los Angeles Airport and there were other strikes intended. They stopped those attacks.

After it was over, he went back to Richard Clarke, yes that Richard Clarke, who was working on his staff and said, "Richard, write up a report on what we've done and let's have a self analysis on what we've done." That's the underlying document that's in question, this millennium report that's based on what he did to stop a terrorism attack.

Now, when the 9/11 Commission came along and said, "Mr. Berger, we want you to come up here and be well versed in the documents surrounding your time as national security adviser regarding terrorism, go into, you know, review all the documents." He went into the National Archives and poured over these documents and in some cases lots and lots of pages.

Now, he did make two mistakes and he admits this and he was sloppy about it. He took notes on what he was reading so he'd be prepared for his testimony and he stuck the notes in his pocket and walked away. That is a technical violation of archival rules.

The second thing he did was he did, as he had all these papers on the desk, he did mix in copies of the original document and got them into his briefcase and, I'm sloppy too so I can appreciate this, he lost a couple of them.

BROWN: David.

GERGEN: So, but let me finish this one point, Aaron, which is critical.

BROWN: OK.

GERGEN: What he lost and what is missing now are copies of original documents and the originals are still there and they've been made available to the 9/11 Commission. There had been no break in the paper trail. There is no harm to national security here. Nothing has occurred which has impaired or threatened national security and there's no advantage to anybody because the documents are in front of the 9/11 Commission, the originals.

BROWN: Then, David, by implication you are suggesting that the puffery that we heard on Capitol Hill today was simply politically motivated stuff?

GERGEN: Well, I have to tell you, Aaron, if I were working on Capitol Hill for one of the Republicans, and I've worked for Republicans in the past, as you well know, I'm sure I would have wanted to join in the fray and pile on and make a whoop-de-doo about this because the 9/11 Commission is coming out and the campaign is coming out.

I do believe, I've talked to his lawyer in this case and Lanny Breuer, Sandy Berger's lawyer, talked to the Justice Department months ago and said, "Gentlemen, let's respect each other here. I will respect your commission. I want you to respect us and be no leaks, especially" he said "just before the 9/11 Commission report."

Now, 48 hours or so before the 9

 

This thing is making Hans Blix and the UN Keystone Kops, by comparison, look like the competent and consummate professionals they were not.

Apparently these professionals do not exist.

Either that, or they're holed up in Britain, and Tony Blair doesn't let anyone know it.

 

My point is that they aren'theld to the same standard. When a democrat fouls up, it's big news nowadays. When a republican does, even the top republican, it's big news for....a day. Maybe two. Then it just goes away.

That because the solid base of the modern Democratic party is built on intellect. Whether good or faulty capacity, it is built on that principle.

The solid base of the modern Republican party is built on religion.

Ergo, built on emotion.

This was not the wing of Bush Snr's Republican party, but it is that of Reagan and Bush's son.

 

Those under Rumsfeld had already begun an investigation - it had been going on for a period of months when that story broke.

CENTCOM had aready put out at least one release back in January about the incident. The chain of command was working... until someone leaked the photos. Then the media turned it into a scandal.

JS, considering several people DIED in the Abu Gharib scandal, I consider your apologia in this regard absolutely null and void. Rumsfled was the one who was publically disregarding the Geneva conventions, after all.

 

So gonk exactly how did you plot the course the solid base of the democratic party was "intellect" please use small words, I am after all a religious nut republican and am likely to condem you to hell if you use multisyllabic tongues.

<grabs torch and pitchfork>

 

That because the solid base of the modern Democratic party is built on intellect. Whether good or faulty capacity, it is built on that principle.

The solid base of the modern Republican party is built on religion.

Ergo, built on emotion.

Yes, please explain.. Is this really what you mean?

Because this statement seems to contradict past decades worth of other unproven stereotypes.