Posted on 07/22/2004 6:38:37 PM PDT by britinusa65
Last Monday evening, the Associated Press broke the news that for-mer Clinton National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, was being in-vestigated by the Justice Department. Berger is alleged to have re-moved several highly classified documents from the National Archive. Berger had been sent there by former president Bill Clinton to review documents pursuant to Clinton’s testimony before the 9/11 Commis-sion. Democrats were quick to accuse the Republicans of deliberately leak-ing this story in an attempt to divert attention away from today’s (July 22nd) release of the Commission’s final report. However, this claim no longer makes any sense. The report is not damaging to the Bush administration, and the president can thank Attorney General John Ashcroft for this. Ten people were chosen to sit on the 9/11 Commission; five Republi-cans and five Democrats. The Republicans and two of the Democrats, Lee Hamilton (the co-chairman) and Tim Roemer are honorable peo-ple. Unfortunately, the remaining three Democrats, Richard Ben-Veniste, Jamie Gorelick and Bob Kerrey are not. I don’t believe Kerrey was overly partisan (He gave Clinton’s Secre-tary of State, Madeline Albright, a torrid time). The problem with Kerrey is that he’s a posturing blowhard. Gorelick should never have been selected to sit on the Commission. It was her famous memo that was the basis of the disastrous “wall of separation” between law enforcement authorities and the intelligence community. Without that “wall” I believe the 9/11 attacks would have been thwarted. Gorelick was selected by Democrat Senate leader Tom Daschle for two reasons: 1) Gorelick would not be required to testify before the Commission (as she should have) 2) She would do every-thing in her power to deflect as much of the blame away from the Clinton administration and onto the Bush administration. Richard Ben-Veniste is a notorious figure in Washington D.C. He is one of that city’s top political lawyers. He was a prosecutor during the Watergate scandal thirty years ago and represented the Clintons be-fore the Senate Committee investigating the Whitewater scandal. He is ruthless, aggressive and devious. His role on the Commission was that of an attack dog. The very fact that Tom Daschle would select this odious individual spoke volumes about the Democrats’ intentions: they were going to politicize the Commission. It would be the most important tool in their campaign to defeat George W. Bush. During the televised portions of the Committee’s hearings, we saw Ben Veniste, Kerrey and Gorelick fawning over whistle-blower Rich-ard Clarke; however, their treatment of Bush’s National Security Ad-visor, Condoleezza Rice was disgraceful. Ben Veniste, in particular, was sarcastic, aggressive and prosecutorial. He constantly interrupted her. But Condi Rice never lost her cool in the face of this hostile and disrespectful treatment. She got the better of Ben-Veniste. Next up was Attorney General John Ashcroft; without doubt the most hated man in the administration, apart from Bush, of course. By the time Ashcroft finished delivering his opening statement, he had changed the course of the 9/11 Commission. Ashcroft achieved two important goals: he “outed” Jamie Gorelick as the person most responsible for the infamous “wall of separation.” I’ll never forget the look on her face. Ashcroft had effectively neutralized Gorelick. She would no longer pose a threat to Bush. From that mo-ment forward, she was a lame duck Commissioner. Ashcroft also fired a warning shot at Ben-Veniste, Kerrey and every other partisan Democrat. He indirectly referred to the investigation of Sandy Berger. Ashcroft, in effect, was telling Ben-Veniste to watch his step. Don’t push it. From that day forward, the Commission behaved in a far more re-sponsible fashion; but as far as Daschle, Gorelick and Ben-Veniste were concerned it was a case of “Mission NOT Accomplished.” Keep an eye on Ben-Veniste. I have a hunch that he’s somehow in-volved in Sandy Berger’s “sloppiness.”
Berger need to be prossecuted for treason, and anyone else involved. Enough is enough, when do we CRY OUT FOR JUSTICE!!
I'm cryin'!
Democrats were quick to accuse the Republicans of deliberately leaking this story in an attempt to divert attention away from today’s (July 22nd) release of the Commission’s final report. However, this claim no longer makes any sense. The report is not damaging to the Bush administration, and the president can thank Attorney General John Ashcroft for this.
Ten people were chosen to sit on the 9/11 Commission; five Republicans and five Democrats. The Republicans and two of the Democrats, Lee Hamilton (the co-chairman) and Tim Roemer are honorable people. Unfortunately, the remaining three Democrats, Richard Ben-Veniste, Jamie Gorelick and Bob Kerrey are not.
I don’t believe Kerrey was overly partisan (He gave Clinton’s Secre-tary of State, Madeline Albright, a torrid time). The problem with Kerrey is that he’s a posturing blowhard.
Gorelick should never have been selected to sit on the Commission. It was her famous memo that was the basis of the disastrous “wall of separation” between law enforcement authorities and the intelligence community. Without that “wall” I believe the 9/11 attacks would have been thwarted. Gorelick was selected by Democrat Senate leader Tom Daschle for two reasons: 1) Gorelick would not be required to testify before the Commission (as she should have) 2) She would do everything in her power to deflect as much of the blame away from the Clinton administration and onto the Bush administration.
Richard Ben-Veniste is a notorious figure in Washington D.C. He is one of that city’s top political lawyers. He was a prosecutor during the Watergate scandal thirty years ago and represented the Clintons before the Senate Committee investigating the Whitewater scandal. He is ruthless, aggressive and devious. His role on the Commission was that of an attack dog. The very fact that Tom Daschle would select this odious individual spoke volumes about the Democrats’ intentions: they were going to politicize the Commission. It would be the most important tool in their campaign to defeat George W. Bush.
During the televised portions of the Committee’s hearings, we saw Ben Veniste, Kerrey and Gorelick fawning over whistle-blower Richard Clarke; however, their treatment of Bush’s National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice was disgraceful. Ben Veniste, in particular, was sarcastic, aggressive and prosecutorial. He constantly interrupted her. But Condi Rice never lost her cool in the face of this hostile and disrespectful treatment. She got the better of Ben-Veniste.
Next up was Attorney General John Ashcroft; without doubt the most hated man in the administration, apart from Bush, of course. By the time Ashcroft finished delivering his opening statement, he had changed the course of the 9/11 Commission. Ashcroft achieved two important goals: he “outed” Jamie Gorelick as the person most responsible for the infamous “wall of separation.” I’ll never forget the look on her face.
Ashcroft had effectively neutralized Gorelick. She would no longer pose a threat to Bush. From that moment forward, she was a lame duck Commissioner. Ashcroft also fired a warning shot at Ben-Veniste, Kerrey and every other partisan Democrat. He indirectly referred to the investigation of Sandy Berger. Ashcroft, in effect, was telling Ben-Veniste to watch his step. Don’t push it. From that day forward, the Commission behaved in a far more responsible fashion; but as far as Daschle, Gorelick and Ben-Veniste were concerned it was a case of “Mission NOT Accomplished.” Keep an eye on Ben-Veniste. I have a hunch that he’s somehow involved in Sandy Berger’s “sloppiness.”
Reposted with paragraphs as a public service since the point about Ashcroft's service in this matter is important.
I wrote the AG. When ordinary citizens cannot trust their media or their government to stand for truth, there are only so many actions a person may take.
Thank You....
Formatting is our freind..
I would also look closely at John Podesta and Lanny Davis :-)
Indeed! Condi and John Ashcroft completely outclassed the RAT hacks on the Commission. That Condi did it in public at the RATs insistence was truly sweet. Excellent points, Brit. Glad you're on this side of the pond.
How? Any quotes available?
I met a wonderful woman who works for Ascroft now and worked with him as a Senator.
Ascroft is a decent, moral, honest, honorable and a Christian man.
That is why the left loathes him. He is everything they are not. Same goes for Bush, that is why they hate him.
They left attempts to put the label "liar" on the President, because they are liars and believe it is impossible not to be. Lieing is a way of life for them. Both Clintoons are a great example of this.
Amusing that the cockroaches ran under the table when Ascroft turned on the lights.
Blessings, Bobo
I support Ashcroft and I have never doubted that he is a decent human being. He fought the right of physicians to prescribe medical marijuana, and he fought against assisted suicide in Oregon. My personal opinion is that these things should be left to the States. That being said, I fully expect him to do his sworn duty, and prosecute Berger to the full extent of the law. The Federal Government may have a differing opinion with the States on certain issues, but this matter is not one subject to a difference of anyone's opinion.
"I fully expect him to do his sworn duty, and prosecute Berger to the full extent of the law."
I believe that he will, unless the Bergler starts squealing like a stuck pig and and makes a deal to save his own hyde at the expense of the criminals that put him up to it.
That would be a scenario I could relish.
Blessings, bobo
I would love to see that!
Even in my fondest hopes and dreams, I can't possibly imagine what he knows that would be worth a deal.
(sorry)
Isn't he just a dumb Christian? How could he be smart enough to neuter these liberals and still believe that there is a God somewhere out there? (Sarcasm)
You are forgetting two major points:
1) Berger is a Democrat and thus immune in the liberal world,
and 2) Republicans are in charge of the investigation meaning nothing will come from it.
Kudos to Ashcroft
I think so too. I just wonder why the left hates him so.
PLEASE FORMAT
and repost.
And become very friendly with the PREVIEW window!
THANKS TONS!
George W. knows quite well how his father was trashed by the Liberals and he has been beating those liberals into a frenzy ever since the day he was sworn in. Today we have every left wing nutjob spouting off more hatred for George W. Bush then they ever spouted over Adolph Hitler.
By ignoring the far left when they curse him, it only invites them to take it to the next level. In all my life, I have never seen the left as unhinged as I see them today. The vile remarks from these people will be what kills them in the end. The average American doesn't appreciate unwarranted attacks on their Commander-in-Chief in a time of War, no matter what political stripe he wears.
Lanny Davis: ID of Berger Probe Leaker 'None of Your Business'
I believe John Ashcroft has the goods on these bastards and this story is gonna be big
"You are forgetting two major points:
1) Berger is a Democrat and thus immune in the liberal world,
and 2) Republicans are in charge of the investigation meaning nothing will come from it."
I'll predict that a Bush victory in Nov. will equal a Berger prosecution. But it will be for a slap on the wrist crime, which won't amount to much.
Partisanship aside, Washington types don't want to go too hard on one from the opposition party, lest turnabout come into play later.
Ashcroft seems to know these buzzards and he is ready for them ....he was great at those hearings
John Ashcroft is Attorney-General, so my guess is his office should be showered with requests for prosecution, the charge Treason for Sandy Berger.
The only "Washington types" that believe that are Republicans.
Democrats know that no matter what they do, they'll never be held accountable or called on it.
I agree that Berger will get nothing in the form of punishment for what could be argued is treason. Republicans are wimps which is why I'm not one any longer.
True, I'll still vote for them, but if that individual running is a wuss in my opinion, I leave that ballot blank like when Lamar! won the primary for Senate in Tenn and I backed Ed Bryant. I don't like Lamar! and didn't bother to vote knowing he was "moderate" enough to win. And besides, his Dem opponent was a neutered wimp too and never made a dint in DC his entire Congressional career and would do no harm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.