Please excuse post if it is a duplicate.
1 posted on
07/24/2004 8:46:26 AM PDT by
tomball
To: tomball
"
The New York paper, in an editorial asks why Berger made these critical decisions rather than the president. The commission report notes the decisions "were made by the Clinton administration under extremely difficult domestic political circumstances. Opponents were seeking the president's impeachment."
It's the VRWC's fault.
Thank God these people aren't calling the shots anymore.
2 posted on
07/24/2004 8:59:26 AM PDT by
VaBthang4
(He Who Watches Over Israel Will Neither Slumber Nor Sleep)
To: tomball
Gee, imagine that. Berger blocked plans to get Bin Laden. And 3,000 Americans died - and the RATS blamed President Bush.
To: tomball
"The Sun opines, had Berger "been a little less reluctant to act, a little more open to taking pre-emptive action, maybe the 2,973 killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks would be alive today." Yes children, elect John Kerry. Given the chance, the RATS will exceed that number - times 1000!
The RAT party is the party of consumption and waste. Revenues or lives, it doesn't matter to these bastards.
To: tomball
How is Berger's stealing of these documents any less significant than Watergate? His actions were clearly for political purposes.
What did Kerry know and when did he know it?
5 posted on
07/24/2004 9:08:20 AM PDT by
boycott
To: tomball
6 posted on
07/24/2004 9:10:00 AM PDT by
The Wizard
(Democrats: enemies of America)
To: tomball
After news of the probe broke Monday, Berger stepped down from his informal position as security adviser to Democratic Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign.
The commission report notes the decisions "were made by the Clinton administration under extremely difficult domestic political circumstances. Opponents were seeking the president's impeachment."
The Sun opines, had Berger "been a little less reluctant to act, a little more open to taking pre-emptive action, maybe the 2,973 killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks would be alive today."
These three issues (among others) bothered me.
What was the need for the word 'informal' in the first line? Kerry isn't President so there can't be any other need for this word than to distance Berger from Kerry. Bull pucky. If Kerry were listing his advisors, Berger would have been near the top, to show that he had excellent advisors. Berger was a formal advisor to Kerry, and the Kerry camp considered themselves fortunate to have him.
Next we have excuses why the Clinton administration couldn't do it's job. If Clinton couldn't do his job, he should have stepped down. He was impeached. He was the sink-miester. He was unfit to serve. This is no excuse, unless an excuss why he should resign.
I guess those actions vs the 2,973 deaths where just too long of odds for the Clinton administration. So what? Who cares? That was all about sex...
A rehashing of events during and after the most ethical administration in U.S. history.
Berger, Clinton and company are lucky they didn't and won't hang from the nearest tree.
8 posted on
07/24/2004 9:29:03 AM PDT by
DoughtyOne
(Fox News is Fair and Balanced. Move-on.org is Bare and Imbalanced.)
To: tomball
If Bin Laden was "got," the flow of Saudi cash and Iraqi oil voucher money to Willie and the DNC would have been cut off! Mark Rich in Switerland was making an even bigger fortune from Saddam and probably the French connections, and funneled some of that to Willie. It was money paid to protect a Saudi son, the heir to a Saudi fortune who was simply acting a little starnge and meant no harm.
Berger and the other "moderate" Arab guys in Willie's corrupt government bought it and agreed that, since he was harmless, it didn't hurt to pick up some change NOT doing what they had rationalized made sense to not do!
13 posted on
07/24/2004 9:54:48 AM PDT by
Tacis
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson