What could have been in those documents? That’s what I’d like to know. It must have been something pretty damaging to either him, or the Clinton administration. I want to know.

Former National Security Advisor and current Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was accused of the theft and descruction of classified materials related to 9/11…

Kind of like how you always go headfirst right into the outhouse hole.

Merry Christmas

Tom tried his obfuscation over at Iowa Voice, too. He doesn’t answer the main point that if the incoming Democrats are so eager to investigate, that there is plenty of muck to mine in Democrat offices.

First, I should thank you ST for giving me (and others) a forum to discuss issues. This post of mine is drifting way off-topic (not to mention longer than a bad novel), but he it comes anyway:

I think we will have to agree to disagree a little bit on this, ST. I believe that Lowry is just flat-out wrong: The dishonest and biased reporting out of Iraq by the MSM far outweighs the accurate. That we need an accurate picture about Iraq is true, but good news is part of an accurate picture.

While I don’t believe Lowry has become an MSM shill, I do think he blew it big time on three counts in his article:

1. We need the whole picture out of Iraq, not just the bad news that the MSM gives us thinking it helps Democrats. And the bad news is all the MSM dishes out. It’s well past time to lay the rest of the facts on the table: WMDs were found and confiscated, a budding Saddam-al Qaeda friendship was broken up, a genocidal dictator has faced trial for his crimes (something Hitler never did), and there have been three free and fair elections in Iraq that have Arab tryants quaking in their boots. War critics must face the truth, no matter how pleasant it may be. And if the case against the war is so good (as the MSM claims it is), they why the omissions and lies?

2. Perhaps I am wrong, but I seriously doubt that it was conservatives who caused Bush to stay his hand in changing strategy in Iraq, as Lowry suggests. Many conservatives (such as Fred Barnes at The Weekly Standard) have long advised more troops to defeat the terrorists. Other people, such as some military generals who were critical of Rumsfeld, have advised a similar strategy. Rather, I think it was war critics that made Bush hesitate about increasing troop strength (which they would seize upon as “proof” that Iraq was another Vietnam). Conservatives have not been overly optimistic about Iraq; rather, war critics have been overly pessimistic to the point of distortion and outright fabrication.

3. Lowry seems to have forgotten that this is not the first time the MSM has taken sides against humanity. Forget the Iraq war for a moment – the MSM was arguably the #1 bootlicker of the Soviet Union and the blood-thirsty Communist thugs they supported. Even today the MSM still swoon over Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez like they were rock stars instead of mass murderers. They flaked for the Communists in Vietnam and lied about the genocide that took place in Southeast Asia after the US left. The amount of blood on the hands of the MSM was considerable even before they began to make common cause with Islamic terrorists.

I cannot bring myself to give the MSM any credit, as Lowry suggests in his article. The evil the MSM has done is too great for me to give them anything except contempt. A free society may not be able to get rid of the MSM any more that it can entirely eliminate the Nazi Party or the KKK, but it should also not hesitate to exclude all three of these groups from public debate and governmental power where legally possible. A free society would do well to protect itself from the MSM as far as possible as long as it was within the law.

That is why I am super-wary of giving any credit to MSM – even if it is on occasion factually accurate. With the MSM, the messenger is the problem.

Unless Berger did this under orders from Clinton, why are we dragging Clinton’s name into this? Am I wrong that Berger did this himself – for his own reasons? Or is he hiding facts or documents harmfull to Clinton?

Tom, the documents dealt with the Clinton administration’s handling of terrorism issues. If Berger was stealing, altering, or destroying them, it’s not unreasonable to assume there’s something in them that puts the Clintonistas in a very bad light. He’s hiding facts or documents harmful to either himself or Clinton, or both.

Add to this the fact that the Clinton Library is also refusing to release similar documents dealing with the same timeframe (link here), and there’s good prima facie reason to suspect Clinton’s behind this. Remember, Clinton’s own track record includes stealing documents such as FBI files on political opponents and lying under oath, so this looks like his modus operandi.

Well, then, I guess there oughta be a media outcry for immediate indictment in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1….

Hmmmm…wonder why the silence? Didn’t Scooter Libby get indicted for allegedly lying under oath? And wasn’t that the top new story for a couple of weeks??

Lowry’s been a guy who has been on our side of the war from the word go, and what he was saying is that we shouldn’t automatically assume that everything the media says about Iraq is a lie, and another point he made is that even though there is good news there (like the rebuilding of schools, etc) it shouldn’t overshadow the fact that Iraq is almost in a state of chaos right now. Without stability and security Iraq desperately needs, those rebuilt schools will continue to be blown up.

Just because he’s cautioning conservatives against automatically thinking the media’s lying when it reports bad news in Iraq doesn’t mean he’s all of a sudden this staunch defender of the media and insulter of conservatives. When even the president is now saying that we’re not winning (but not losing, either) you know there are problems in Iraq, and Lowry was saying that even though the media has gotten some things wrong or incomplete, the fact that things are descending into an ‘insurgent war’ over there can’t be blamed on media bias, because in fact, things are very close to just that and the media has been reporting that for months.

On a side note:

Get Helen Thomas embedded in the White House potty ASAP! (Skubinna)

Someone make sure to flush and put the lid down. And switch off the light.

Amen.

Can you say “Able Danger”?

Like his boss Billy Jeff, Berger is a liar through and through, and guilty of a felony that should bar him from classified documents for life. He is a criminal. Actually, a traitor who should be put in jail for life for criminal malfeasance.

Of course, the NYT won’t cover this. It isn’t news unless it hurts Bush and Repubs.

I agree. I would like to see justice done regardless of political affiliation. It makes me sad when folks start pointing fingers at ‘the other guy’, rather than admit someone needs to be punished. Unless Berger did this under orders from Clinton, why are we dragging Clinton’s name into this? Am I wrong that Berger did this himself – for his own reasons? Or is he hiding facts or documents harmfull to Clinton?

This guy deserves to be in jail.  His $50k fine and community service is effectively a reward for a job well done, considering the penalties he could have and should have faced, all so he could destroy evidence of how Clinton handled Bin Ladi…