Hmmm... why no cry from the left

. The fact that they didn't go after the Democrat Berger more speaks volumes. There was nothing there to go after.
//

Or it would also expose something embaressing to the Bushies.


I need evidence and facts. This is just speculation based on nothing more than a gut feeling.
 
Two possibilities.

If DOJ was politicized to go after Democrats more aggresively than republicans (as has been alleged) , then they would have been keen to bring additional charges against the Democrat Berger. The fact that they didn't says it all.

If DOJ wasn't politicized by Bush, then they remain, as they should, non-partisan professional prosecutors. In this scenario, non-partisan professional DOJ prosecutors didn't find any further evidence to support more charges on Berger.

Which means all we're left with is speculation and consipiracy theories by rightwing blogs and superfreak ;)
Those are not the only two options.

3. The DoJ was instructed to give this guy a pass, but still punish just less so, because the fallout would hurt both parties.

And the DoJ is a political position appointed by the President.

Once again, only a partisan loyalist would find that they are terrible one week, then when something comes up later they would suddenly all be super-professionals who we should totally trust with all our hearts.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and floats on water is it a witch? Let's get out the scales.
 
I need evidence and facts. This is just speculation based on nothing more than a gut feeling.

Correct, just a theory.

Unfortunately we get too little info on things to make decisions since bush has zippered up all information flows he can.
 
I need evidence and facts. This is just speculation based on nothing more than a gut feeling.
Unless it was a "Bushie" then speculation is enough to post thread after thread about the "corruption" in the R party. It is enough to know exactly where loyalties lie.

Information will not be forthcoming without an attempt to find it. And as long as we are willing to let them hide because of political affiliation we will never have the "evidence" that you insist you need.
 
Weak argument because you, who want investigations into every tiny iota of a different party, refuse to even see when it really matters to the problems at hand when it references your party.

Weak because it is clear it is a party and not nation that lies at the heart of what you think is important. I've lost a bit of respect for you.

I quote these two sentences because I want to address them without a lot of filler getting in the way.

First.... you will need to provide some examples that would prove that I want investigations into every tiny iota of the republican party.... actually, if you could find examples of more than a couple, I would be surprised.

Second. My nation will ALWAYS be more important to me than party. I just so happen to fervently believe that the very best thing that could happen for America would be the adoption of the democratic party platform. I believe that. The day that ceases to be the case is they day I take "yellowdog" off of my party affiliation. Now if my fervently holding that belief causes you to lose some measure of respect for me, I am sorry.
 
I quote these two sentences because I want to address them without a lot of filler getting in the way.

First.... you will need to provide some examples that would prove that I want investigations into every tiny iota of the republican party.... actually, if you could find examples of more than a couple, I would be surprised.

Second. My nation will ALWAYS be more important to me than party. I just so happen to fervently believe that the very best thing that could happen for America would be the adoption of the democratic party platform. I believe that. The day that ceases to be the case is they day I take "yellowdog" off of my party affiliation. Now if my fervently holding that belief causes you to lose some measure of respect for me, I am sorry.
No, a small measure of respect is lost when one is willing to allow others to get away with something because of that shared affiliation of party. Instead of seeking the information we wind up with a whole slew of people helping to dig that hole in the cat-box so that they can bury that turd and all becuase they think the best thing for the nation is their party? Rubbish. The best thing for the nation is to refuse to allow these people to cover their turds.

In every case before, I have said I'll wait for the results of an investigation before making a judgement. I would too with this one. All I ask for is that we seek to find out what they are attemting to bury in that cat-box. Instead all I get is that we shouldn't even look into it, this from the same people that think we should continue looking into every minute thing that may come along that leads to speculation about the other party.

I have never called for an end to an investigation, just reserved judement.
 
Those are not the only two options.

3. The DoJ was instructed to give this guy a pass, but still punish just less so, because the fallout would hurt both parties.

And the DoJ is a political position appointed by the President.

Once again, only a partisan loyalist would find that they are terrible one week, then when something comes up later they would suddenly all be super-professionals who we should totally trust with all our hearts.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and floats on water is it a witch? Let's get out the scales.

It's complete speculation Damo. I have always speculated about this case, because I was very surprised that at the time, the inside the beltway Republicans didn't say much about it. It was the kind of thing that they would make a big stink over. They scream, cry and whine about far less.

But I've always known I was just speculating, and that if both parties want something covered up, guess what? No one is ever going to find out anything. Also, I think cypress has a good point about Berger not giving a crap about his law license. I think that would have been an easy thing for him to give up, just to keep this out of the news for a second time.

There might be something there, there might not be. We're never going to know.
 
"Which means all we're left with is speculation and consipiracy theories by rightwing blogs and superfreak "

AGAIN... the part you keep skipping over....

1) Investors Business Daily is not a rightwing blog

2) Huffington post is left wing... so why would they link their readers to this information. Forget about the right wing blog... IBD also had an article on it.

3) Berger gave up his license.... WHY???? Because as you say "there is nothing there"??? THAT makes a lot of sense.

4) Yes, at this point it is simply questions on my part, theories as well.... which is WHY we should find out what he is hiding that is so important that he would give up his license.

5) NO professional whether practicing or not is going to voluntarily give up something they worked so hard to get. So the "it didn't really hurt him" excuse is not going to work either.
 
Those are not the only two options.

3. The DoJ was instructed to give this guy a pass, but still punish just less so, because the fallout would hurt both parties.

And the DoJ is a political position appointed by the President.

Once again, only a partisan loyalist would find that they are terrible one week, then when something comes up later they would suddenly all be super-professionals who we should totally trust with all our hearts.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and floats on water is it a witch? Let's get out the scales.


The DoJ was instructed to give this guy a pass, but still punish just less so, because the fallout would hurt both parties.


But, you're just pulling this out of your ass ;)

Give me some facts and evidence to support your assertion.

The two options for DOJ I provided above are based upon established facts, or sworn testimony to congress.
 
The DoJ was instructed to give this guy a pass, but still punish just less so, because the fallout would hurt both parties.


But, you're just pulling this out of your ass ;)

Give me some facts and evidence to support your assertion.

The two options for DOJ I provided above are based upon established facts, or sworn testimony to congress.
Once again, the fact is that until he was under investigation again he held that license suddenly giving it up to cover something up. Ignoring the coverup because you want evidence is ridiculous. The only way to get evidence is to actually seek it. You just want it to end, you help cover up that pile of turd because it there is a few D turds in the mix.
 
"I need evidence and facts. This is just speculation based on nothing more than a gut feeling."

WHICH is WHY Berger should be forced to testify.... THAT is the only way we are going to find out what he is hiding... and he is CLEARLY hiding something. THAT is a fact. IF he wasn't he would have answered the Bars questions.
 
There might be something there, there might not be. We're never going to know.

Only so long as there are so many willing to allow party to trump nation. If there was enough of an outcry, as it has been shown in the past, we can get the information. Instead we just have people holding up that curtain...

"Pay no attention... These aren't the ones you're looking for...."
 
Only so long as there are so many willing to allow party to trump nation. If there was enough of an outcry, as it has been shown in the past, we can get the information. Instead we just have people holding up that curtain...

"Pay no attention... These aren't the ones you're looking for...."

I guess Damo, that I have other things to put my energy into besides something that may, or may not have happened.

I know that very few people understand this (for the war or against), but I feel that one inside me. When I'm scared, or embarrassed, or nervous over something that I'm doing as an activist, I think about what first got me out there. Pictures of terrified and dying and dead little children...for a lie. And no one has done shit about that, though I think that life prison sentences all around are in order.

So we all have our own things we feel our outrage over. I don't think you feel mine, I know SF doesn't. Spend all the time investigating this that you both want to. I'm all for it. But as for me showing "outrage", I already said what I have always suspected about the whole incident, and my outrage and passions direct themselves, naturally, through no effort on my part to force them, elsewhere.
 
Darla... come on now... just how exactly do you know what I feel? Were you one of those demanding something be done to alleviate the starving and dying children in Iraq due to the sanctions and Saddams abuse of the sanctions? Should we send forces into Darfur to protect THOSE children that are being mutilated and killed?

Are we the ones targeting innocent civilians (including the children)? Or are we trying to target the ones doing so?

Please do not act as though I do not care about the loss of innocent lives. I do care. Greatly. Which is why the way the admin has handled this war pisses me off.
 
"I need evidence and facts. This is just speculation based on nothing more than a gut feeling."

WHICH is WHY Berger should be forced to testify.... THAT is the only way we are going to find out what he is hiding... and he is CLEARLY hiding something. THAT is a fact. IF he wasn't he would have answered the Bars questions.

Absolutely Lets just put everyone on the stand. Everyone is hiding something....
 
"Absolutely Lets just put everyone on the stand. Everyone is hiding something...."

So yet again... it is a joke to you, because Berger is a dem... but if this were a Rep... like Libby or Rove or Gonzalez... then by all means THEN we need to know what happened. How very partisan of you.
 
Darla... come on now... just how exactly do you know what I feel? Were you one of those demanding something be done to alleviate the starving and dying children in Iraq due to the sanctions and Saddams abuse of the sanctions? Should we send forces into Darfur to protect THOSE children that are being mutilated and killed?

Are we the ones targeting innocent civilians (including the children)? Or are we trying to target the ones doing so?

Please do not act as though I do not care about the loss of innocent lives. I do care. Greatly. Which is why the way the admin has handled this war pisses me off.

I didn't say you didn't care, I said you wouldn't understand how I feel about it. It's not a big issue for you, judging by what you post about. So I don't see how you could understand or know, how I feel about it. And yes, in shock and awe and all of our bombings since then, we bombed civilians. Targeted them? I don't know what that means. You bomb civilian neighborhoods, you kill civilians.
 
"Absolutely Lets just put everyone on the stand. Everyone is hiding something...."

So yet again... it is a joke to you, because Berger is a dem... but if this were a Rep... like Libby or Rove or Gonzalez... then by all means THEN we need to know what happened. How very partisan of you.

Duhhh! "EVERYONE" is not partisan at all. spin away ;)
 
"Duhhh! "EVERYONE" is not partisan at all. spin away "

Doesn't it hurt an old fart like you to be ducking and diving for cover so often?:tongout:
 
Back
Top