"There's an ethic here - that is of strict discipline, of not letting the
fact you're working on a political campaign start to color your actions when
it comes to national security," Hunter said.

The incident took place last October, before Berger was an advisor to Kerry.
Nice try, though.

a.. Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said more information was needed before
judging Berger, but "obviously, the timing of it is not good" for Kerry.

Obviously it's not. This "national security risk" was allowed to run free for 8
months by the Bush administration, who only thought to make any noise about it
at all immediately befoe the D's convention.

a.. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., called the news "surprising." He told Fox
that "unless we learn otherwise, I have to assume that what Sandy said was
right - that any removal of documents was inadvertent. But it is serious."
Asked whether Kerry should dump Berger, the former rival said,

That's Fox for ya......Berger resigned from the Kerry campaign several days
ago, and now Fox wants to know whether Kerry should "dump" Berger. Fair and
balanced?
If they're going to be in the news business, they should start with "informed."

That's up to
John Kerry, but I'm sure he will stay on the team unless there's some
charges that are proven that leads Senator Kerry to do otherwise."

Horse manure! He already resigned!
But millions of rw lemmings will wander around repeating that Kerry refuses to
get rid of this guy........



a.. Democrat strategist Richard Goodstein insisted that Kerry should
"absolutely not" boot Berger.
"The documents that Sandy supposedly took were copies. There are copies
elsewhere throughout the Archives and elsewhere in Washington, so it's not
like he was trying to cover something up," Goodstein maintained to FNC.


a.. However, Ben Ginsburg, national counsel for Bush-Cheney '04, said what
mattered was whether Kerry benefited from Berger's actions.
"That's an essential question that needs to be answered from the Kerry
campaign: Did they benefit from documents that they should not have had?"


a.. DEBKAfile reported: "Presidential challenger Kerry will have to think
twice before attacking Bush on national security issues lest he lay himself
open to reminders that a former Clinton aide and his own adviser was caught
red-handed misappropriating classified materials that revealed how a
Democratic president mishandled the threat of terror."


a.. And then there's this tidbit: "Officials with the Bush-Cheney campaign
point out that Berger gave a surprise background briefing to reporters on
Feb. 27 on behalf of the Kerry campaign, in which he outlined airline
security issues apparently drawn from the now-missing classified memos
Berger is accused of removing from the National Archives," FNC reported.

Oops: Kerry's campaign is already distancing itself from Berger. Handlers
are emphasizing that the former national security bigwig was just "an
informal adviser," not a paid official with the campaign.

As for Berger's obvious angling for an invite to be CIA director in case of
a Democrat victory in November, you can forget all about that now.

Does it bother you at all to lie, or to spread lies? Berger resigned, several
days ago.

But as badly as the reactionary right wing is trailing in the poll, it's no
wonder you resort to these desparate lies.

http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
"There's an ethic here - that is of strict discipline, of not letting the
fact you're working on a political campaign start to color your actions
when
it comes to national security," Hunter said.

The incident took place last October, before Berger was an advisor to
Kerry.
Nice try, though.

The fact that Kerry probably knew the incident took place last October,
before Berger was an advisor to Kerry speaks volumes for John Kerry's
"ethics".


a.. Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said more information was needed before
judging Berger, but "obviously, the timing of it is not good" for Kerry.

Obviously it's not. This "national security risk" was allowed to run free
for 8
months by the Bush administration, who only thought to make any noise
about it
at all immediately befoe the D's convention.

Justice may be slow but relentless


a.. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., called the news "surprising." He told
Fox
that "unless we learn otherwise, I have to assume that what Sandy said
was
right - that any removal of documents was inadvertent. But it is
serious."
Asked whether Kerry should dump Berger, the former rival said,

That's Fox for ya......Berger resigned from the Kerry campaign several
days
ago, and now Fox wants to know whether Kerry should "dump" Berger. Fair
and
balanced?
If they're going to be in the news business, they should start with
"informed."

It's not them, it is "we" who are know informed...as to Kerry's dump only
AFTER the news has exposed Berger and therefore Kerry's use of him.

Kerry Knew about this for 8 months but yet kept the thief whithin his inner
circle.


That's up to
John Kerry, but I'm sure he will stay on the team unless there's some
charges that are proven that leads Senator Kerry to do otherwise."

Horse manure! He already resigned!

Cite when

But millions of rw lemmings will wander around repeating that Kerry
refuses to
get rid of this guy........

When exactly did Kerry dump Berger?




a.. Democrat strategist Richard Goodstein insisted that Kerry should
"absolutely not" boot Berger.
"The documents that Sandy supposedly took were copies. There are copies
elsewhere throughout the Archives and elsewhere in Washington, so it's
not
like he was trying to cover something up," Goodstein maintained to FNC.


a.. However, Ben Ginsburg, national counsel for Bush-Cheney '04, said
what
mattered was whether Kerry benefited from Berger's actions.
"That's an essential question that needs to be answered from the Kerry
campaign: Did they benefit from documents that they should not have had?"


a.. DEBKAfile reported: "Presidential challenger Kerry will have to think
twice before attacking Bush on national security issues lest he lay
himself
open to reminders that a former Clinton aide and his own adviser was
caught
red-handed misappropriating classified materials that revealed how a
Democratic president mishandled the threat of terror."


a.. And then there's this tidbit: "Officials with the Bush-Cheney
campaign
point out that Berger gave a surprise background briefing to reporters on
Feb. 27 on behalf of the Kerry campaign, in which he outlined airline
security issues apparently drawn from the now-missing classified memos
Berger is accused of removing from the National Archives," FNC reported.

Oops: Kerry's campaign is already distancing itself from Berger. Handlers
are emphasizing that the former national security bigwig was just "an
informal adviser," not a paid official with the campaign.

As for Berger's obvious angling for an invite to be CIA director in case
of
a Democrat victory in November, you can forget all about that now.

Does it bother you at all to lie, or to spread lies? Berger resigned,
several
days ago.

But as badly as the reactionary right wing is trailing in the poll, it's
no
wonder you resort to these desparate lies.

http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 14:31:16 -0400, "mono sect" wrote:

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
"There's an ethic here - that is of strict discipline, of not letting the
fact you're working on a political campaign start to color your actions
when
it comes to national security," Hunter said.

The incident took place last October, before Berger was an advisor to
Kerry.
Nice try, though.

The fact that Kerry probably knew the incident took place last October,
before Berger was an advisor to Kerry speaks volumes for John Kerry's
"ethics".

Sir:

Unless you possess some extraordinary powers of discernment, you have no way of
knowing what Mr. Kerry knew or did not know. It is therefore not a "fact," as
you aver.

[elided]

It's not them, it is "we" who are know informed...as to Kerry's dump only
AFTER the news has exposed Berger and therefore Kerry's use of him.

Kerry Knew about this for 8 months but yet kept the thief whithin his inner
circle.

Once again: you have no way of knowing; and your continuing assertion does not
alter the fact that your premise (that Mr. Kerry "knew") is invalid.

Most sincerely,
W.T. Hatch

The fact that Kerry probably knew the incident took place last

The "fact" he "probably knew"........?


This "national security risk" was allowed to run free
for 8
months by the Bush administration, who only thought to make any noise
about it
at all immediately befoe the D's convention.


Justice may be slow but relentless

So who's the worst offender here? There's a possibility that Berger is a spy.
Remote, but still possible. Bush and his boys knew about this last October.

First offense: Berger possibly spying for Al Qaida.

Second offense: Bush putting the security of the US *second* to his own
political ambition by leaving Berger to run loose until the most politically
opportune moment to reign him in.

Neither individual gives a Schlitz about the safety and security of the US,
only profit (Berger) and politics (Bush).


Kerry Knew about this for 8 months but yet kept the thief whithin his inner
circle.

More details break between paragraphs?
We progress for the "fact" that Kerry "probably knew" to a statement that he
did, indeed, absolutely know. RW think at it's finest- make a wild assumption
and then project additional wild assumptions from your own, initial guess.

Horse manure! He already resigned!



Cite when

By "late last Tuesday", 4-5 days ago.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ent/2004-07-21
-berger-kerry_x.htm

When exactly did Kerry dump Berger?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ent/2004-07-21
-berger-kerry_x.htm

Chuck put the tin foil hat back on the aliens are putting thoughts into your
head again.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
The fact that Kerry probably knew the incident took place last

The "fact" he "probably knew"........?


This "national security risk" was allowed to run free
for 8
months by the Bush administration, who only thought to make any noise
about it
at all immediately befoe the D's convention.


Justice may be slow but relentless

So who's the worst offender here? There's a possibility that Berger is a
spy.
Remote, but still possible. Bush and his boys knew about this last
October.

First offense: Berger possibly spying for Al Qaida.

Second offense: Bush putting the security of the US *second* to his own
political ambition by leaving Berger to run loose until the most
politically
opportune moment to reign him in.

Neither individual gives a Schlitz about the safety and security of the
US,
only profit (Berger) and politics (Bush).


Kerry Knew about this for 8 months but yet kept the thief whithin his
inner
circle.

More details break between paragraphs?
We progress for the "fact" that Kerry "probably knew" to a statement that
he
did, indeed, absolutely know. RW think at it's finest- make a wild
assumption
and then project additional wild assumptions from your own, initial guess.

Horse manure! He already resigned!



Cite when

By "late last Tuesday", 4-5 days ago.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ent/2004-07-21
-berger-kerry_x.htm

When exactly did Kerry dump Berger?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ent/2004-07-21
-berger-kerry_x.htm

Bert Robbins wrote:

Chuck put the tin foil hat back on the aliens are putting thoughts into your
head again.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
The fact that Kerry probably knew the incident took place last

The "fact" he "probably knew"........?


This "national security risk" was allowed to run free
for 8
months by the Bush administration, who only thought to make any noise
about it
at all immediately befoe the D's convention.


Justice may be slow but relentless

So who's the worst offender here? There's a possibility that Berger is a
spy.
Remote, but still possible. Bush and his boys knew about this last
October.


I'm more concerned about the Bush Administration's utter failure to keep
the lid on at Los Alamos. "Disappearing" nuclear secrets is a bit higher
on the scare list than Sandy Berger's walking off with copies of memos
he probably wrote.



--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:

Chuck put the tin foil hat back on the aliens are putting thoughts into
your
head again.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
The fact that Kerry probably knew the incident took place last

The "fact" he "probably knew"........?


This "national security risk" was allowed to run free
for 8
months by the Bush administration, who only thought to make any
noise
about it
at all immediately befoe the D's convention.


Justice may be slow but relentless

So who's the worst offender here? There's a possibility that Berger is
a
spy.
Remote, but still possible. Bush and his boys knew about this last
October.


I'm more concerned about the Bush Administration's utter failure to keep
the lid on at Los Alamos. "Disappearing" nuclear secrets is a bit higher
on the scare list than Sandy Berger's walking off with copies of memos
he probably wrote.

Then I guess you were concerned about the Clinton Administration's utter
failure to keep the lid on Los Alamos.

At least the Bush Administration wasn't giving away missle technology to the
ChiCom's.