I believe this story is also being blown out of proportion for partisan interests, and many of the sordid details will prove to be bogus.  Of course, you'll never hear a retraction from the partisan Republican media.  Mind you, the allegations about Berger's filching of documents have been out for months.  The Berger debacle is just the first of many right-wing "outrage" stories which will precede the election.


Oh yes, I forgot how things are in "Maxwell's World".  This is the world where Republicans, Conservatives, or Christians are evil, power-mad, Pro-Corporate, Pro-War, Anti-minority, do-anything-to-win, liars.

And Liberals and Democrats are all harmless little angels, who never do anything wrong.  They never lie, cheat, or steal.  They have simply puriant interestes for world peace and the improvement of everybody (except the evil Corporations, the rich, and Republicans).

The funny thing is, the more and more I read posts which claim everything is a lie, a media coverup (or blow-up), the more I discount it.  It is easy to just make claims.  How about some HARD proof?

I first heard this story on NewsMax last week.  Oh, that alone makes it untrue.

THen this weekend, I heard it on Fox News.  No, they are partaisan also.  It is a lie.

Then this week, I have heard it on NBC, ABC, CNN, and many other sources.  I even heard from a retired FBI investigator, talking about how they conduct investigations into things like this.  But no, it is blown all out of proportions.

Maxwell, welcome to the REAL world.  Guess what, Democrats and Liberals are people too.  They do stupid things and break the law, and get caught also.  Just live with it.

The more you stick your head in the sand and deny that things like this happened (or the seriousness of it), the more credability is lost by you.  Just admit, somebody on your side screwed up and get over it.

As I said before, when somebody on "my political side" does something boneheaded, I just shrug and say "what an idiot" or "what a shame".  When rush was caught for drugs, I shook my head and hoped he got treatment.  When Cheny swore, I thought "what a foolish thing to do".  You did *NOT* see me denying it, or saying something like "the other guy deserved to be sworn at".

BTW:  It seems strange that all of the documents missing made Clinton look bad in reguards to terrorism and Al-Queda.  And if this is a nothing incident, why is the FBI talking about 20 years in jail, and why is Sandy HIMSELF going on TV talking about how wrong it was and how sorry he is?

I'm trying to find where it said he stuffed the papers in has pants, shirts, socks, whatever, and have not
seen it in any of the news releases. Could you sight your source, or is it just rumor? I did read that this story has been floating around for about 9 months.If the justice department and homeland security haven't been to concerned about what he did, up until now, then I guess they figured that there wasn't any reason.

Oh yes, I forgot how things are in "Maxwell's World".  This is the world where Republicans, Conservatives, or Christians are evil, power-mad, Pro-Corporate, Pro-War, Anti-minority, do-anything-to-win, liars.
That about sums it up, 'cept most Christians aren't like the ones you see on the teevee, the power mad ones who own Liberian diamond mines and accuse cartoon characters of being homosexuals.

and Liberals and Democrats are all harmless little angels, who never do anything wrong.  They never lie, cheat, or steal.  They have simply puriant interestes for world peace and the improvement of everybody (except the evil Corporations, the rich, and Republicans).
what's this "puriant"  business?  A cross between prurient and puritan? 
The problem is I can't stand Bill and Hillary per se, but compared to the f*ckw*ds who made careers out of tearing them down, they look like find, upstanding public servants.  John Kerry's kissing up to Sharon over that illegal land-grabbing fence makes me wanna puke, but when I'm facing four more years of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, I gotta lower my standards--A LOT!  The difference between the Democrat party and the Republican part is this:  The Democrats are the party of big business with drippings for the poor, the Republican party is the party of big business without drippings for the poor.  Ralph Nader said there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the Dems and the Reps.  Well, Ralph's a little behind the times.  With inflation, the difference goes up to about a buck twenty-five!
However, what we have with the Bush Administration is rabid Tasmanian devil wing of the Republican party.  They're too sick and too dangerous and they've gotta go!

The funny thing is, the more and more I read posts which claim everything is a lie, a media coverup (or blow-up), the more I discount it.  It is easy to just make claims.  How about some HARD proof?

I first heard this story on NewsMax last week.  Oh, that alone makes it untrue.

THen this weekend, I heard it on Fox News.  No, they are partaisan also.  It is a lie.

Then this week, I have heard it on NBC, ABC, CNN, and many other sources.  I even heard from a retired FBI investigator, talking about how they conduct investigations into things like this.  But no, it is blown all out of proportions.

Maxwell, welcome to the REAL world.  Guess what, Democrats and Liberals are people too.  They do stupid things and break the law, and get caught also.  Just live with it.

The more you stick your head in the sand and deny that things like this happened (or the seriousness of it), the more credability is lost by you.  Just admit, somebody on your side screwed up and get over it.

As I said before, when somebody on "my political side" does something boneheaded, I just shrug and say "what an idiot" or "what a shame".  When rush was caught for drugs, I shook my head and hoped he got treatment.  When Cheny swore, I thought "what a foolish thing to do".  You did *NOT* see me denying it, or saying something like "the other guy deserved to be sworn at".

BTW:  It seems strange that all of the documents missing made Clinton look bad in reguards to terrorism and Al-Queda.  And if this is a nothing incident, why is the FBI talking about 20 years in jail, and why is Sandy HIMSELF going on TV talking about how wrong it was and how sorry he is?

Is the FBI talking about 20 years in jail?  They've been working on this case for 10 months and never found reason to talk about 20 years for Big Sandy in all that time.  They haven't been able to charge him criminally AT ALL.  Like I say, the rumors about docs in socks is fabrication.  The 9/11 Report is coming out tomorrow and the Bushies are scared and desperate.  So they leaked this half @ssed story to "USA Toady" because it's all they have.  These rabid right-wingers will resort to any measure of mendacity to hold onto their ill-gotten power.  By the time the righty-right spin machine gets done lying about Kerry and Edwards, the candidates will stand accused of being everything but cannibalistic pedophiles--and maybe that too! 

I saw former Reagan lickspittle-cum-radio host Hugh Hewitt on TV last night saying it was the Democrats who tried to steal the 2000 election.  Shameless, shameless, shameless!

The reason I get angry is because the interests of the people are not served by the major parties.  If you love the corporate oligarchy status quo, you get two major parties to pick from, if you don't, you get diddley.  That's what the Greens, Nader, and the rest of them should form, "The Diddley Party," because that's what they amount to!
>:( :P

The 9/11 Report is coming out tomorrow and the Bushies are scared and desperate.  So they leaked this half @ssed story to "USA Toady" because it's all they have.   These rabid right-wingers will resort to any measure of mendacity to hold onto their ill-gotten power.  By the time the righty-right spin machine gets done lying about Kerry and Edwards, the candidates will stand accused of being everything but cannibalistic pedophiles--and maybe that too! 


Actually, a lot of people are speculating that the leak actually came from...  Bill Clinton.

Bush gains nothing from this.  And if nothing else, it might create a larger political divide, something he most definately does NOT want.  He has nothing to gain, and has quite a bit to loose.

Remember, Bill Clinton is a political creature, and the goal now is to get Hillary into the White House.  Hillary is not ready to run at this time, but in 4 years, she may well be in her political prime.  If Bush wins re-election, then the office is up for total grabs in 4 years.  No incumbant running, and no incumbant vice-president running.  Whoever runs as a Democrat is faceing a virgin Republican opponent.

However, if Kerry wins, then Clinton will have to back him for 8 years.  By then, Hillary will be slipping out of her prime because of her age.  A lot of speculation is that she WAS approached as a possible VP, but Bill shot that down.  That is why she was snubbed at the Convention, and why so many were speculating that she might be the VP before Edwards was picked.

Plus remember, Burger was going through the archives at the request of Bill Clinton, so Bill knew what he was doing, and presumabely what was taken.  Even if it is true, Bill will not get into trouble.  All he has to say is that he never told him to take them, and Burger takes the fall.  Bill will come out of this smelling like a rose, no matter WHAT happens.  And don't forget, Kerry at the same stroke lost one of his key advisors.  Burger resigned from his campaign, both because of this, and because of suspicions that he leaked classified material to Kerry.  Once again, things that make you go "Hmmmm".

I'm trying to find where it said he stuffed the papers in has pants, shirts, socks, whatever, and have not seen it in any of the news releases. Could you sight your source, or is it just rumor?


Here are a few places you can look at:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-07-21-bush-berger_x.htm
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/21/1350256
http://www.ktok.com/script/headline_newsmanager.php?id=331590&pagecontent=nationalnews&feed_id=59


I did read that this story has been floating around for about 9 months.If the justice department and homeland security haven't been to concerned about what he did, up until now, then I guess they figured that there wasn't any reason.


I agree, and I also question the timing.  I explain one reason already for why the link might have happened now.

Here are a few places you can look at:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-07-21-bush-berger_x.htm
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/21/1350256
http://www.ktok.com/script/headline_newsmanager.php?id=331590&pagecontent=nationalnews&feed_id=59



I agree, and I also question the timing.  I explain one reason already for why the link might have happened now.

Hey, thanks for linking to "Democracy Now." 
Law enforcement sources said archive staff members told FBI agents they saw Berger placing items in his jacket and pants, and one archive staffer told agents that Berger also placed something in his socks. That latter allegation drew a sharp response from Berger associate and former White House lawyer Lanny Davis, who challenged any unnamed official who makes such an accusation to come forward publicly. Davis said "I suggest that person is lying. And if that person has the guts, let's see who it is who made the comment that Sandy Berger stuffed something into his socks."
Sounds like heresay to me.  This story will only be as significant as desperate Republicans want to make it.  Otherwise, it has no bearing on the events that will shape our nation over the next four years.

I have to come out right now and say any interest I have in Bill Clinton is prurient. Beyond that I want to know know
why you say that in eight years, when Hilary is 65 years old, she will be past her prime.  There are many in that age
group who just hitting their stride.

I have to come out right now and say any interest I have in Bill Clinton is prurient. Beyond that I want to know know
why you say that in eight years, when Hilary is 65 years old, she will be past her prime.  There are many in that age
group who just hitting their stride.

Are you sure your interest in Bill Clinton is prurient?

Are you sure your interest in Bill Clinton is prurient?


ADJECTIVE:1. Inordinately interested in matters of sex; lascivious. 2a. Characterized by an inordinate interest in sex: prurient thoughts. b. Arousing or appealing to an inordinate interest in sex:

You guys have got to be accept the truth about Bill and women.  There is something about him that makes
quite a few of us, let's say, curious to distraction.  He posed on the cover of a magazine with a cigar in his
mouth and his legs spread.  I forget the magazine, but I remember the picture.  After chuckling I thought
"oooh, baby!!!"

I have to come out right now and say any interest I have in Bill Clinton is prurient. Beyond that I want to know know
why you say that in eight years, when Hilary is 65 years old, she will be past her prime.  There are many in that age
group who just hitting their stride.


There are several reasons I say this.

For one, it is her age.  Women just do not age politically like men do.  That has a lot to do with image.  Short of maybe Maggie Thatcher, most women do not last in politics past middle age.

Another is that she is still a Junior Senator.  She needs to get a lot of support fast and try to ride that.  If she falls off the "popularity wagon", she does not have enough time to build it up again.

Right now, there is a big movement for "Younger Politicians".  The early baby-boomer generation of politicians is starting to get out, making way for the late baby-boomers and early "Gen X" politicians.  In 8 years, THEY will be the driving force.

Politics is a very fluid business.  It can change and fluctuate wildly in the span of 4 years.  After all, who in 1991 could have expected George Bush to LOOSE?  Nobody, he had some of the highest approval ratings in history.  But 2 years of recession, and he was gone.  People saw him as "Old", and Bill Clinton as "young and energetic".

Actually, a lot of people are speculating that the leak actually came from...  Bill Clinton.

Bush gains nothing from this.  And if nothing else, it might create a larger political divide, something he most definately does NOT want.  He has nothing to gain, and has quite a bit to loose.

Remember, Bill Clinton is a political creature, and the goal now is to get Hillary into the White House.  Hillary is not ready to run at this time, but in 4 years, she may well be in her political prime.  If Bush wins re-election, then the office is up for total grabs in 4 years.  No incumbant running, and no incumbant vice-president running.  Whoever runs as a Democrat is faceing a virgin Republican opponent.

However, if Kerry wins, then Clinton will have to back him for 8 years.  By then, Hillary will be slipping out of her prime because of her age.  A lot of speculation is that she WAS approached as a possible VP, but Bill shot that down.  That is why she was snubbed at the Convention, and why so many were speculating that she might be the VP before Edwards was picked.

Plus remember, Burger was going through the archives at the request of Bill Clinton, so Bill knew what he was doing, and presumabely what was taken.  Even if it is true, Bill will not get into trouble.  All he has to say is that he never told him to take them, and Burger takes the fall.  Bill will come out of this smelling like a rose, no matter WHAT happens.  And don't forget, Kerry at the same stroke lost one of his key advisors.  Burger resigned from his campaign, both because of this, and because of suspicions that he leaked classified material to Kerry.  Once again, things that make you go "Hmmmm".


wow... tinfoil hat time.  Amazing how the Republicans are totally obsessed with the Clintons and totally paranoid they're trying to wriggle into the oval office at all costs.  Heck, drag out the "kill list" while you're at it. 

This all sounds highly suspicious to me.

Have any of you ever been to the national archives?  I have.

First, you get a pass.

Next, you put EVERYTHING you are carrying into a locker - no brief cases, no paper, no nothing goes into the reading room. They supply paper for taking notes, and a copier is available.

Once in the reading room you fill out a slip ordering the boxes of doicuments you want to read.  Since Berger has to security clearance he no doubt could order material I could not, but probably was denie access to a copier, unless the security level had been downgraded or the material declassified. 

These rules are very strick and inforced by people with whme I would not want to antagonize.  It is inconceivable that they would let him spirit documents out of the building, or that a guard whould "observe" him stuffing them and not react.

And as you leave, all that you bring out, your notes and copies (on which you also copy a small label with the date and time of the copy) are inspected before you can leave the building.

wow... tinfoil hat time.  Amazing how the Republicans are totally obsessed with the Clintons and totally paranoid they're trying to wriggle into the oval office at all costs.  Heck, drag out the "kill list" while you're at it. 


You notice I did *NOT say that is what I believed...  I was just passing along what some people are saying.

Myself, I think it was probably one of those one-favor-for-another type of deals.  Either this was leaked as capitol for a favor at a later date, or leaked to pay back an earlier favor.

Myself, I do not think it is directly political at all, simply another case of a leaker and a reporter with an agreement.

One thing I encourage people to be careful about when responding to my posts, is that I try to stay fairly neutral most of the time.  I simply pass along what others say/think/feel.

In fact, sometimes I have posted in here with a "Devil's Advocate" approach, trying to support (or oppose) the exact opposite of my actual belief.  This is both to try and foster communication, and to help foster people actually THINKING of a topic that has been raised.

I strongly support the idea of free THOUGHT.  That is much different then free speech.  ANybody can talk forever on-end on a subject, but people seem to put much less thought into what they say then they should.

Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Anarchist, Libertarian, Socialist, COmmunist.  The viewpoint in this area is not as important to me, as the concept of thinking about it, and making up your own mind.  This is opposed to simply parroting something because others say it, and that this is how you are SUPPOSED to think/feel/act, because of your preconcieved political belief.

This is why I can have an intellectual conversation with somebody like Don Carlos.  His responses are almost always well thought out and articulate, and rarely is his response simply "because so-and-so says so" or "because everybody knows that".  This is very different from a "knee-jerk liberal", who simply assumes everybody "opposed" to their beliefs as evil/wrong/stupid.

To me, knee-jerk of either side is wrong.  I have no more love for Conservative knee-jerks then I do for Liberal knee-jerks.  To me, both are stupid because they are letting other people do all their thinking for them.

Most of the posts I start are either to bring out something that is not being talked about that is current (like this one), or one to try and get people thinking about something (like the one on Race or News Bias).  It is the conversation, awareness, and thinking I am trying to foster, not any kind of "brainwashing" or political indoctrination.  I am not trying to make converts, but to simply make people aware.  News bias is a fact.  It is impossible to NOT have it in fact, because we are all human.  But when we are aware of the fact, we can help take that into account when we hear something.  That makes us better informed.

So thanks for the tinfoil hat Chucky.  I will place it on the mantle alongside my autographed picture of Art Bell.  ;D

There are several reasons I say this.

For one, it is her age.  Women just do not age politically like men do.  That has a lot to do with image.  Short of maybe Maggie Thatcher, most women do not last in politics past middle age.

Another is that she is still a Junior Senator.  She needs to get a lot of support fast and try to ride that.  If she falls off the "popularity wagon", she does not have enough time to build it up again.

Right now, there is a big movement for "Younger Politicians".  The early baby-boomer generation of politicians is starting to get out, making way for the late baby-boomers and early "Gen X" politicians.  In 8 years, THEY will be the driving force.

Politics is a very fluid business.  It can change and fluctuate wildly in the span of 4 years.  After all, who in 1991 could have expected George Bush to LOOSE?  Nobody, he had some of the highest approval ratings in history.  But 2 years of recession, and he was gone.  People saw him as "Old", and Bill Clinton as "young and energetic".


This should probably be its own thread but here goes

Your last paragraph illustrates why she could be a viable candidate in 8 years.  Politics is fluid. Who in
2004 could expect a 68 year old woman to WIN? In eight years the "Gen X" politicians will be a driving force, but the boomers will be a voting force, and we are seeing what is called "the graying of America" .  What was old yesterday is not thought to be old today, and that attitude may follow as the population gets older, and that is the population that she is focusing.  She is ambitious, shrewd, and knows how to play the crowd. I wouldn't count her out.

You notice I did *NOT say that is what I believed...  I was just passing along what some people are saying.

Myself, I think it was probably one of those one-favor-for-another type of deals.  Either this was leaked as capitol for a favor at a later date, or leaked to pay back an earlier favor.

Myself, I do not think it is directly political at all, simply another case of a leaker and a reporter with an agreement.


The problem is, that you don't state that in your post.  You just state "this is what a lot of people of beginnng to believe".  Yes, that gives you the ability to say later you don't believe it.  I also noticed your response plays it down, "some people" opposed to "a lot of people".  You didn't offer any of your own commentary on it, so I think it's safe to assume, that if your posting something as outrageous at this one, and trust me it's one step away from claiming the Illuminati are running his campaign, that you must believe some element of it.

On the original topic of the thread:

Since the person in question admits to taking the paperwork, I have no problem with believing that.  The FBI has an investigation about it, so clearly he did something wrong, and seeing as how his political party is not in office, I'm sure he won't be getting away with much.

To believe he shoved paperwork in his socks?  I can't believe any SERIOUS news organization would even repeat that.  I don't even know how someone could make it up and get someone to believe it.  A secure location and there's no film footage? Security agents witness it and don't report it?  Is a former security advisory, not the president or someone currently in power.  I don't think he has the power to do something like this while being observed and not have it questioned.

Certainly, it's a lot easier to believe this is being manipulated by the current administration for political gain, than it's somehow Bill Clinton during his retirement from office trying to help Kerry lose so that Hillary has a chance to run in 2008.

This should probably be its own thread but here goes

Your last paragraph illustrates why she could be a viable candidate in 8 years.  Politics is fluid. Who in
2004 could expect a 68 year old woman to WIN? In eight years the "Gen X" politicians will be a driving force, but the boomers will be a voting force, and we are seeing what is called "the graying of America" .  What was old yesterday is not thought to be old today, and that attitude may follow as the population gets older, and that is the population that she is focusing.  She is ambitious, shrewd, and knows how to play the crowd. I wouldn't count her out.


The problem with Hillary Clinton, is that she polarizes the voters. She could certainly win a Democratic convention nod, but she would never, and I mean never, win the presidental election.  Why?  Republicans DESPISE her. Never have I seen such partisan bashing and hand wringing over the President's wife before.  When she got elected to office, it just whipped them into an even greater fury.  Middle America is still opposed to the thought of a powerful woman. An excellent example of this is from the 1992 election:

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/living/9024617.htm?1c

I dislike her opinions on several items, such as healthcare.  I'm not much of a fan, but her name recognition is way too much of a liability outside of the "liberal" areas of the country.

Most of the posts I start are either to bring out something that is not being talked about that is current (like this one), or one to try and get people thinking about something (like the one on Race or News Bias).  It is the conversation, awareness, and thinking I am trying to foster, not any kind of "brainwashing" or political indoctrination.  I am not trying to make converts, but to simply make people aware.  News bias is a fact.  It is impossible to NOT have it in fact, because we are all human.  But when we are aware of the fact, we can help take that into account when we hear something.  That makes us better informed.

So thanks for the tinfoil hat Chucky.  I will place it on the mantle alongside my autographed picture of Art Bell.  ;D


Not being talked about? By who? It was in every newspaper this week. Oh, you mean the second a highly partisan "reporter" reported the leak, the rest of the press didn't fall into lockstep behind them and parrot the same commentary? I guess they were too pre-occupied with the witch hunt of the current administration to notice right?

It's funny you talk about how neutral you try to be, but you've bought into the "liberal media bias" thing hook, line, and sinker.  You've discussed it at great length in several threads here.  I guess that makes the bit I saw on the Daily Show last week all the more humourous.  I can't provide a link to the particular show (it might be on their website), but I can summerize it for you.  When Edwards was picked as Kerry's running mate, the GOP released a 20+ page of "talking points" for the media.  Some of the choice bits are lines like "most liberal member of the Senate" as well as attacks on his law practice.  The daily show, then provided clips of three different news networks, Fox, CNN, and MSNBC, where the various talking heads repeated the same phrase almost word for word.  Yes, clearly that liberal bias conspiracy was hard at work trying to defend Edwards by using the GOP cribnotes for all of their commentary. What's really sad, is that The Daily Show is perhaps the only place you'll find someone pointing that out, and then illustrating it for the viewer. If there's a liberal bias in network news, they must really stink at pushing their agenda.

I don't watch network news myself, I get my news from news.google which means I get it from about 20-40 different sources. I usually read the same news report two or three times from vastly different locations, BBC, NY Times, Washington Post, etc.  I try and avoid the highly partisan crap, like LA Times, the Post, Fox News, etc. 

If you don't believe the Clinton thing, than you've received your tinfoil hat a little prematurely.  The liberal media bias thing though, is certainly a good reason to be considered for it.

This is why I can have an intellectual conversation with somebody like Don Carlos.  His responses are almost always well thought out and articulate, and rarely is his response simply "because so-and-so says so" or "because everybody knows that".  This is very different from a "knee-jerk liberal", who simply assumes everybody "opposed" to their beliefs as evil/wrong/stupid.

To me, knee-jerk of either side is wrong.  I have no more love for Conservative knee-jerks then I do for Liberal knee-jerks.  To me, both are stupid because they are letting other people do all their thinking for them.



First, thanks for the compliment, and let me say that I appreciate your dispassionate approach to the issues and the lack of vitriol in your posts.

2nd, let me point out that when I suggest sources, as I sometimes do, they are scholarly studies that have earned the respect of other specialists in the fields.  They are usually not polemics, but serious academic studies (which does not make them either neutral or objective).  On one student evaluation of my teaching a student observed that I "quoted from other books" beyond the texts.  I showed it to a colleague who responded "Well, where do they think we get thyis stuff?"  I the "Race" thread I recommended a few books that look at "race" in comparative perspective.  I personally have not made a study of race except through the secondary literature - ie published sources.  But I read those sources, and reviews of them, and draw conclusions based on the evidance they present.  One can't study eveything through primary documents.  Unfortunately, there just isn't enough time or opportunity.

I agree that there are a goodly number of people, both on the board and in general, that employ a knee-jerk (and you can omit the "knee") response to most issues, that is, respond on the basis of prior, usually ideological, beliefs without facts.  In some measure, this, I think, is the fault of our educational system(s), but that should be another thread.  I'll start it.

That about sums it up, 'cept most Christians aren't like the ones you see on the teevee, the power mad ones who own Liberian diamond mines and accuse cartoon characters of being homosexuals.



That about sums it up, 'cept most Christians aren't like the ones you see on the teevee, the power mad ones who own Liberian diamond mines and accuse cartoon characters of being homosexuals.



That about sums it up, 'cept most Christians aren't like the ones you see on the teevee, the power mad ones who own Liberian diamond mines and accuse cartoon characters of being homosexuals.



That about sums it up, 'cept most Christians aren't like the ones you see on the teevee, the power mad ones who own Liberian diamond mines and accuse cartoon characters of being homosexuals.



That about sums it up, 'cept most Christians aren't like the ones you see on the teevee, the power mad ones who own Liberian diamond mines and accuse cartoon characters of being homosexuals.

^ That's certainly new.

There are gonna be lots of fingers pointing here and there but the fact remains is that everybody screwed up and they should stop bickering because I want something else in my news :P  Saying "he did it!" or "no, he did it!" won't bring back the World Trade Center. 

The way the "left-biased" and "right-biased" sources are reporting all this, I don't even know who's right anymore, so I am taking the "okay, we all screwed up" side of things and hoping they find a solution instead of wasting all our time and energies on a shoving match in which there won't be any winners.

This all sounds highly suspicious to me.

Have any of you ever been to the national archives?  I have.

First, you get a pass.

Next, you put EVERYTHING you are carrying into a locker - no brief cases, no paper, no nothing goes into the reading room. They supply paper for taking notes, and a copier is available.

Once in the reading room you fill out a slip ordering the boxes of doicuments you want to read.  Since Berger has to security clearance he no doubt could order material I could not, but probably was denie access to a copier, unless the security level had been downgraded or the material declassified. 

These rules are very strick and inforced by people with whme I would not want to antagonize.  It is inconceivable that they would let him spirit documents out of the building, or that a guard whould "observe" him stuffing them and not react.

And as you leave, all that you bring out, your notes and copies (on which you also copy a small label with the date and time of the copy) are inspected before you can leave the building.


Yep DC, I was thinking the same thing.  I've been to the Archives on many occasions, and there is NO ROOM FOR ERROR unless...more than one person working there is in on it.  There's just no other way you could get anything out of that building.

wow... tinfoil hat time.  Amazing how the Republicans are totally obsessed with the Clintons and totally paranoid they're trying to wriggle into the oval office at all costs.  Heck, drag out the "kill list" while you're at it. 
Nope....it's just turnabout is fair play...with one huge exception. I am bad mouthing that loser Clinton AFTER he's out of office (Thank GOD) while the liberals ALWAYS whine about every current republican one ::)