Hmmm... why no cry from the left

Actually when this story first started breaking most people on the left said if he did something wrong he should be punished. I don't remember anyone defending him.

As for outcries, I only have a limited amount of them. I've used most of them up on torture, the "intelligence" on the war, ports, borders, outing a CIA agent, K street, immigration sellouts, stop losses, Iraqi deaths and troop deaths et cetera..............
 
I didn't say they were defending him... I said, why not the cry for full disclosure? Why no concern over the details in this case when it is so vital to the nation to know why Bush fired political appointees?

As for your second paragraph... funny how this doesn't fall into intelligence on the war category... what do you think Berger destroyed.... intel on Monica? But that is ok... no need to worry... I understand the hypocricy. Had this been Rove, it would certainly be a different story... wouldn't it?
 
Superfreak said:
I didn't say they were defending him... I said, why not the cry for full disclosure? Why no concern over the details in this case when it is so vital to the nation to know why Bush fired political appointees?

As for your second paragraph... funny how this doesn't fall into intelligence on the war category... what do you think Berger destroyed.... intel on Monica? But that is ok... no need to worry... I understand the hypocricy. Had this been Rove, it would certainly be a different story... wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Sandy was punished:

" Fined $50,000, sentenced to 100 hours of community service and barred from access to classified material for three years, ...."

And he had to forfeit his law license & he is no longer our president's national security advisor.
What exactly would I be outcrying about?

Come to think of it, what exactly are you b!tching about? He's been fined, licensed revoked, and is not in office anymore.
 
LadyT said:
Sandy was punished:

" Fined $50,000, sentenced to 100 hours of community service and barred from access to classified material for three years, ...."

And he had to forfeit his law license & he is no longer our president's national security advisor.
What exactly would I be outcrying about?

Come to think of it, what exactly are you b!tching about? He's been fined, licensed revoked, and is not in office anymore.
Click to expand...
Once again it is the "full disclosure" that is sought. Just as I'd love full disclosure of "Libby's" mess, we need to know what was so important that he'd risk jail time, willingly give up his license after he already had his deal and wouldn't be subject to any prison time... So forth.

What was he hiding when he destroyed those documents?
 
Okay, just for SF & Damo -

My Outcry>>>>>

OHHHHH LAWD!!!!!!! I want full disclosure and I want it now!!!!!!!!!
 
LadyT said:
Okay, just for SF & Damo -

My Outcry>>>>>

OHHHHH LAWD!!!!!!! I want full disclosure and I want it now!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
It can clearly have direct impact on national security considering what the research was about. This is like ignoring foreign funding of campaigns. Illegal, but ignored.
 
Superfreak said:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070516-113137-9942r.htm

this one has links to numerous websites and articles on the subject... and you would be hard pressed to call huffingtonpost a rightwing site.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/Sandy+Berger
Click to expand...


1) From your Washington Times link:

"The (Bush) Justice Department has said it was unaware of any new facts to support a new investigation."

So, Bush's own Justice Department considers the matter closed, and there's no new facts to support a new investigation.


2) Your Huff post link, is a link to Powerline blog. An ultra rightwing partisan site. Again, you're directing me to partisan, rightwing opinion sites and blogs to support your postion.

The Bush Justice Department says case closed. Unless you can provide mainstream and relatively non-partisan sources to back your contention, I consider this thread closed, and another hilarious example of faux outrage. ;)
 
"And he had to forfeit his law license & he is no longer our president's national security advisor.
What exactly would I be outcrying about?"

Uh... no... he voluntarily gave up his law license a couple of weeks ago in order to avoid questioning by the Bar Association. Now after being punished by the Justice department as you mentioned.... why would he voluntarily give up his law license? What is he hiding?
 
The guy is out of office and he has been punished. I'm sorry, but I've moved on.
 
"2) Your Huff post link, is a link to Powerline blog. An ultra rightwing partisan site. Again, you're directing me to partisan, rightwing opinion sites and blogs to support your postion.

The Bush Justice Department says case closed. Unless you can provide mainstream and relatively non-partisan sources to back your contention, I consider this thread closed, and another hilarious example of faux outrage. "

So a LEFT WING site like Huff post includes the article and you still ignore it. I also posted the Investors Business Daily site.

Bottom line... you are dodging the point. There is NO arguing that he just gave up his law license. That is fact. So ignore the rest of the articles if the fact that they are not left enough for you. The main point is one you cannot dodge. He voluntarily gave up his law license to avoid answering questions from the Bar Association. WHY???? WHAT IS HE HIDING???

But please, continue to try to ignore this... It is quite evident that you are hypocritical.

It is very apparent that you only care about the illegal activities if they have an (R) after their name. I am sure it wasn't anything important Berger was hiding... it isn't that hard to obtain a law license, so no big deal when a lawyer gives it up simply to avoid answering questions.
 
"The guy is out of office and he has been punished. I'm sorry, but I've moved on."

1) He was never IN office. He was an appointee not an elected official

2) This JUST happened. Thus, it is NEW.

3) This could have implications on the war on terror, Iraq, 9/11.... but again, since he isn't Karl Rove... Who cares.... right???
 
Superfreak said:
Why no outcry from the left on this? Or does the mantra of "we have a right to know exactly what happened" only apply when someone on the right does something wrong.

Why would Berger give up his license without a fight if there was nothing of importance to hide?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/sandy_berger_and_the_clinton_c.html
Click to expand...

If there's sufficient evidence to do so, indict him and then prosecute him... and when/if he's found guilty, incarcerate him... what is the bush justice department waiting for? Christmas?
 
Damocles said:
This is such total bullpucky! We had a guy spend time in Leavenworth for unintentionally mishandling classified material. He left it unlocked in a room that people with clearances, but not clearances for that material, had access to. Seriously, he was convicted and spent some serious time for this. This guy walks away from a coverup with his license and only gives it up when the Bar starts looking into his shenanigans? WTF?
Click to expand...

Indeed... Gonzales was talking about a classified policy in front of people without the proper security clearances... when will he be incarcerated?
 
Superfreak said:
"If he is proven guilty he should be punished severly not given a wrist slap."

That is just it... he copped a plea with the Justice Department and got off without explaining what he destroyed. Now, he cut off the Bar association from finding out by giving up his license. Nice, convenient way to stroll off into the sunset. We have to force his hand... get the Justice Department involved again and find out what he is hiding. Right?
Click to expand...

who's justice department? bush's... and they have obviously dropped the ball, but you somehow want to blame the democrats... why is that? is it because to you, the bush administration can do no wrong?
 
uscitizen said:
Of course now is the correct time of more clinton investigations :D
Especially if you are a desperate republican.
I guess the republicans wasted their time on all those investigations and Starr chamber time...
How many more years will they need to dig ?
Click to expand...

a couple... or less...
 
TheStripey1 said:
Indeed... Gonzales was talking about a classified policy in front of people without the proper security clearances... when will he be incarcerated?
Click to expand...
Indeed? What classified policy?

Gonzales likely fired some people improperly. Investigate it by all means. But leaving this information undiscovered can leave us directly in danger. He was directly researching the attacks on 9/11, hiding information that would bring clarity to the happenstance, no matter the reason is at least as serious as some people getting fired.
 
did I miss something? Did not the Bush administration department of justice dispose of this case already?

shit...let's talk about Teddy and Chappaquiddick.

better yet....

Let's talk about what happened to Bush when he failed to take his flight physical as ordered.
 
maineman said:
did I miss something? Did not the Bush administration department of justice dispose of this case already?

shit...let's talk about Teddy and Chappaquiddick.

better yet....

Let's talk about what happened to Bush when he failed to take his flight physical as ordered.
Click to expand...
He copped a deal before we get the information that he hid. What part of disclose the information is confusing to you?

Let's make this as easy as possible. We want to know what he was so desperate to hide because it is important to our national security....

Shall I "say" it slowly for you?

He cannot be prosecuted because of his deal, there is no 5th Amendment wall to hide behind. He was so desperate to hide what he destroyed that he gave up his license rather than face investigation.

We need to know what they are hiding regardless of the fact that he can't be prosecuted.

Now, if Chappaquiddick had something to do with 9/11, I'd agree it should be investigated. But I doubt that will solve anything or give information regarding any attack on 9/11. Or "sh!t" let's talk about Bush in the National Guard... right.
 
why, pray tell, would the Bush DOJ let him "cop a deal" if they thought there was some seriously damning evidence?
 
maineman said:
why, pray tell, would the Bush DOJ let him "cop a deal" if they thought there was some seriously damning evidence?
Click to expand...
It appears so. I wonder if it has something to do with why some people were fired...

Maybe it all has to do with the Gonzales case after all.

But, of course, we can't find out because it is about the 9/11 investigation and therefore Clinton has a magic "no investigate here" card.

Why would people who want to make sure everything is in the open want to hide this? Oh, I know! It might implicate one of their own and party trumps nation for y'all every time, right?

Shall we twist this same knife over and over, or do you remember making just such remarks to somebody on this board? Not me. I'm happy to investigate wrongdoing of my party. It just doesn't seem that you are yours....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top