that an administration can have a scandal three years after leaving the White House.

Only the Clintons...

The most ludicrous thing about the whole episode is that the documents that Berger is accused of taking to "cover up" their contents are all over Washington as copies.

It's an attempt to deflect attention from the release of the 9/11 Commission's report on Thursday, but I doubt if it will have the intended effect.  The public will still be paying plenty of attention to the report.

I'm not sure which idea is more appalling, that Berger is covering up some dreadful failing, or that the man in charge of national security for much of the Clinton Administration is utterly incompetent at handling top secret national security documents.

Don't forget that Mr. Berger was, until yesterday, Mr. Kerry's campaign advisor on national security. Further proof positive that the Democrats cannot be trusted with national security.

RLTW


-- Modified on 7/21/2004 7:31:05 AM

-- Modified on 7/21/2004 7:35:46 AM

  that someone supporting Bush would find anything at all scandalous!! Berger took documents and someone in the W White House commited treason by outing a CIA agent!!  Or how about deliberately not informing congress for months that N. Korea has nukes just so that wouldn't interfere with the Iraq resolution!!  The list goes on and on and on and on so you can see why your line of "Only the Clintons,"  sounds as laughable and foolish as OJ simpson proclaiming frustration over the slow progress for the rights of battered women in abusive relationships!!  
  I mean really don't you know that a person standing in a glass house shouldn't be throwing stones at others!!  Honestly, a republican complaining about scandals is really like Saddam complaining about the slow pace of justice for Iraqi torture victims.  It doesn't even pass the very basic retard test!!

If it did, Reagan would have had nothing BUT scandals during his Presidency.

That's the same Dick Cheney who's net worth due to Halliburton holdings has gone up by over $30 Million dollars (from around $55 million in 2000 to $86 million presently) in the past 3.5 years as a direct result no-bid contracts that he made sure Halliburton received in the Iraq war.   And who lied about having direct influence in the awarding of those contracts, in claiming his office was not involved - despite several leaked memos that prove the contrary.

-- Modified on 7/21/2004 5:57:14 PM

Cannot be trusted with Nat'l Security?

Truman did an OK job- Macarthur his Republican opposite was nutso

Roosevelt did OK job- a lot of his republican opponents were appeasers and Fascist fellow travellers

Kennedy did an OK job- some of his opponents were so anti communist they were fascist

We were safer under Clinton as we HAD NOT YET ALIENATED ALL OUR FRIENDS.

Our present crowd having run the car inot the ditch ought to be happy to get out of the way and let somebody else at the wheel.

Oh, I forgot- you LIKE a state of war to exist between us and the rest of the world!

This is a minor matter of a guy forgetting that the STUFF HE WROTE was not his anymore.

Compared to the sheer stupidity and two facedness of Reagan's having sold arms to Iran on the side and then illegally funding a fascist army in Central America, this is small beer.  There are plenty of legit reasons for you guys to rile up the panties, let this one go.

Dude-

How short your memory.  Reagan's people were being tried and largely CONVICTED all during the Bush I admin.  Oh, but then stealing millions form the govt till is less sexy than a stray BJ or two, so you guys did not notice.

Remember I used to be across the aisle with you guys.  That was when I moved over. As I saw how making america better was off the GOP agenda- replaced by making a few big investors super wealthy and throwing bones to enough regular folks to dupe them into thinking they were being helped.

Make under a Million a year and voting GOP?  Sucker!

year range think that Bush is "their guy".  They actually think they are part of the club!  LOL!  They are being played for suckers.

They need to make a lot more than that before they will be part of Bush's club.

Don't forget Ollie North's secretary stuffing original documents in her bra in order to take them home and destroy them.

Ollie's secretary does it, and it's a scandal, while Clinton's National Security Advisor does it, and it's not?

Hypocrisy much?

I agree with you that Berger's act was roughly equivalent to Fawn Hall's in terms of it's culpability.  

But the actual destruction of the documents is NOT what made the Iran-contra a scandal.  And Fawn Hall rightfully received no criminal penalty for doing so.

The obstruction of the justice in the destruction of the documents pales into insignificance next to the actual act of covert dealing with hostage takers in order to illicitly fund a war that had explicitly been been denied funding by our lawmakers.

Ollie's secretary took original documents and destroyed them in order to cover up what Ollie had been up to.  Berger took copies of documents that apparently were already in the 9-11 commission's possession.  If he was trying to cover something up, this seems to be a rather ineffective way to do it.  

So, yes, what Ollie and Fawn did was a scandal.  Whether what Berger did is a scandal remains to be seen.  From what I have seen so far, it only rises to the level of stupidity.

in any administration.  And Reagan's administration certainly had their share of them.

I make approximately $200 K a year and nearly half of that goes to taxes.  The Democrats seem to define wealthy (when they start a new round of class warfare) as over $100 or $150 K, but these days that is just about enough to own a comfortable (not huge) house, pay taxes, and maybe save a little for retirement.
 Don't forget that Kerry is worth around 200 Million and his wife is worth around 700 million.  Edwards make ?70 million by personal injury law/malpractice claims (maybe his clients could have used a little more of that money themselves).  One of the most infuriating things is that these congressmen (Dem or Repub) usually don't have to live by the laws they pass.  And you certainly know that a couple, the Kerrys, who are worth almost a BILLION dollars won't personally care if taxes are raised.  I, on the other hand, have to worry about paying for my kids college, paying insurance, the mortgage, retirement funds, etc...

200K  -500K?  Is that what you think the at least 1/2 of the American voters make a year?

Just FYI, the two richest guys in this race are democrats, and neither one of them would probably give you a job at the "Country Club", much less let you join!

The point is that Bush is giving huge tax breaks to those who earn over 500K per year, and that the people who are earning 200-500K are paying for those tax breaks for the wealthy by paying more taxes themselves.

So I'm quite sure that they were happy to have him earn his contingency fees for winning the cases.  And, BTW, the lion's share of his winnings was against companies who's negligence resulted in the MUTILATION OF INFANTS AND CHILDREN.  Which is why some of the awards he won were so large.  Juries in this country don't look kindly on negligence that results in mutilated babies.   And the large awards are found by the juries specifically so that they ARE punitive, and have a deterent effect on such negligence in the future.  There are only 2 reasons that Edwards is so wealthy, having grown up poor:  1) He was DAMN GOOD, in fact, extraordinarily competent at being a trial lawyer,  and  2) He tended to argue cases for extremely sympathetic victims against unsympathetic defendants.

So are you advocating limiting the damages that companies can be held liable for when they negligently mutilate children?  That sure sounds like what you're advocating.


Oh, and BTW, you are correct about the Bush Tax Cuts.  The benefit anyone with a 6 figure income, not just a $500K income.  But they DON'T benefit anyone with much less than a 6 figure income - especially in light of the increased costs of energy, and very poor wage growth we've experienced in the Bush "recovery".

Actually Kerry would have to let me in -family connections don't cha know-

But I prefer pick up hoops in the ghetto, so I don't have to wear white!

what a joke!!!

Friends don't sell you our for oil contracts. After 9/11, it was time to take a stand. That is why Kerry would be a terrible POTUS, he can't do anything without getting "permission" from the world community. As for me, I'm not quite ready for the US to give up its status as a sovereign nation...

Shouldn't even more of the money go to the victims?  Why should lawyers view each juicy case as potentially winning the lottery?  Why not cap the ridiculous lawyer fees to something reasonable (I do not see millions of dollars in lawyer fees for a single case reasonable).  In a broad nationwide view, these outlandishly high payouts increase all our insurance premiums and make finding specialty doctors (such as OB, Ortho, Neurosurgeons) impossible in smaller towns or in states in malpractice crisis (Nevada, Florida, Texas, Ohio, W. Virginia to name the worst).
 Just because Edwards paraded some injured kids in front of a jury to make MILLIONS for himself, doesn't mean the system isn't broke and hurting us all, unless you happen to be a trial lawyer.
 BTW, in states where tort reform has been enacted (such as Indiana, California), the average award to a true victim actually goes up, because the frivilous suits can be weeded out.  So don't say tort reform will hurt these kids; it wouldn't.

That is what keeps frivolous lawsuits from reaching the Court Dockets.  The fact is, you have a self-interested claim in wanting Tort reform, your plea on behalf of the plaintiffs rings quite hollow.  I don't hear any of Edwards clients on whose behalf he made his millions screaming that he got an undue share of the winnings.  What you call a "true victim" is actually a very self-serving definition.

Arguably, the capping of liabilities weeds out more than the frivolous lawsuits, and weeds out legitimate claims that are not any longer worth the effort of the best lawyers to pursue.  Your result that average awards go up is actually a statistical validation of the fact that small, but legitimate claims are no longer being represented in states where tort "reform" has been carried out.  The desired result should NOT be an increase in average awards, but a decrease in average claims.  If that's not happenning, the reform itself is broken.

or a neurosurgeon to treat their head trauma.  Tell that to those living in the UP of Michigan who used to have 12 hospitals and now only have five.  You might as well give up if you get into a hunting accident in the UP, or have birthing mother/infant in real trouble.
 The real truth is that the current system was built and is sustained by lawyers.  They fight tooth and nail against any kind of common sense tort reform because it would hurt THEIR pocketbooks.  They cloak their selfish interests with language such as "protecting victims" and "just compensation".  The current system does not weed out frivilous suits, at least in most states.  Examples are too numerous to list.  And you can sue anybody for any reason.  It takes a good lawyer an afternoon to fire out a lawsuit.  Why not sue and see what sticks?
 And, by the way SDSTUD, I do not really have a self-interested claim in tort reform.  I live in a state which already has it, and has been a model for reform throughout the nation (including California).  So I already have a reasonable tort system.