Sandy Burglar stole documents from the government, plain and simple. I don’t care if they were copies of the menus to a State dinner in 1993, they were government property and not Burglar’s to put in his pants, socks, or any other article of clothing. He STOLE them! What part of that don’t you understand, SB!?

If they had to do with national security, or how much campaign financing Billy Bub was to get from the Chinese, it wasn’t the papers per se but the notes that were important, and that’s what no one can reconstruct.

And finally, I’m just real sure SB! would be just as forgiving and understanding if it was Ollie stealing papers about the Nicaraguan fiasco, right?

Looks like destroying historical documents are in fact destroying information because they were not exact duplicates, as Associated Press reported via WP.

Go re-read your source. The documents that Berger took were copies, not originals. That means that even the notations, in theory hand written as the documents circulated within the executive branch, were preserved. I found one source that claimed they were scanned and stored electronically. I know you know what I’m talking about; everyone has seen the copy of the Joseph Wilson article in the NYT with the Devil’s (that would be Cheney for you CONservatives) handwriting.

Again, had Berger destroyed documents that contained information that was lost as a result of his destruction, I doubt that Ashcroft and then Gonzales would have accepted the settlement. The point is Gonzales knew what the documents contained, that there was no loss of information, and there was no cover-up.

Are you trying to tell me that Gonzales would have been partisan toward a democrat, let alone the former National Security Advisor? You’re talking about people who stoop to new lows to demonize their opponents, such push-polling that John McCain has a black daughter… and he’s a republiCON! The thought that you have so little confidence in your own AG has spread a smile across my face, capshaw. You funny guy.

What makes you think I’m sticking up for a light sentence? Berger lost his security clearance. Just exactly how is a consultant working in national security supposed to make a living if he can’t be told classified information? This supposes that you understand what a consultant like Berger does. But, Berger is a smart guy, and I’m sure he’s utilized his talents in other ways.

No, what probably happened was the documents contained notes that pertained to what the Clintons were going to pass along to the next administration. The documents were, if you recall, an after analysis of the millenium bomb plot and the success of the Clintons in preventing the attack. And here you have the former National Security Advisor swiping copies out of the Archives, which if the matter was brought before a court, would have exposed to the world the fact that the Clintons left the Bushes a thorough, complete and up-to-the-minute analysis of the fact that bin Laden was “determined to strike inside the US.” (Sound familiar?) Which revelation would once again remind the country that Bush was warned, over and over again, that an attack was on the way. Not if, but when was the only unkown. And Bush went on vacation. For a month.

So, I guess now would actually be a great time for the House Government Reform Committee to reopen this matter. Let’s declassify the document and print it on the front page of every newspaper in the country. And could we do it in the next 3 and half weeks, so that Americans can see what a half-assed job this administration is doing, just in time for the election? As if we need more proof.

“resulted in no loss of information” - SB

Liberal hack!

“destroyed some of them at his office” -AP

Looks like destroying historical documents are in fact destroying information because they were not exact duplicates, as Associated Press reported via WP.

Lets analysis you argument SB because they make me laugh so hard. .

“are only three possible reasons. 1) He’s crazy;”

Ok, so one reasons you give could be that he is crazy. So I take the logic of that and express it onto his main employer, Bill Clinton. Bill C. is crazy for hiring him. Obvious we know Bill has character judgment. By the way, I’m not the one saying this – you are. You are the one sticking up for the criminal’s light sentence. He has plenty of money, the fine meant nothing to him or his family. I’d rather see him in a normal population cell in a major Federal prison with the rapists, murderers and other hard-criminal for a couple of months, and have no fine. He was destroying historical documents and he knew better.

Point two: “He got confused” –SB

Ok so now he could be a confused person. Clinton should have good character judgment because his boy worked an awful lot for him. Your argument is rather stunning. I would not have come up with these jems. I’m not that talented in comedy as you are SB.

Point three: “He thought the docs said something he didn’t want others to know”-SB

“if the documents said something Berger wanted to cover up, they wouldn’t have accepted the settlement.” –SB. What logic is that? If he destroyed something that will never be known then no-way we or the Justice Department will know or could do anything about it. Your logic is akin to point #2. You are confused. There is nothing the justice department could do about what was destroyed. What did you want them to do? Not fine him at all? Let him walk without any consequences. Torture him for the truth? I know Clinton wanted to hush up this little episode of team-play, but we know Bugler was his loyal employee. Point three carries no weight.

I have to say your arguments have no merit except for comic relief. I laughed and had great time reading them. They made me laugh quite a bit. However, since you are akin to your own point number two. Let me simplify this addendum. I’m laughing at you and not with you.

PS: Feel free to provide more comedy relief, for gosh-sakes, it free.

First, CalCON, I like the way you quote from a mysterious source about the content of the documents, but neglect to include several pertinent details. For instance, the documents he removed were copies, not originals. Second, the documents (plural) were copies of each other with only slight, handwritten variations. To whit:

Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost. It remains unclear whether Berger knew that, or why he destroyed three versions of a document but left two other versions intact. Officials have said the five versions were largely similar, but contained slight variations as the after-action report moved around different agencies of the executive branch.

–http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html

So, it’s not like we don’t know exactly what these documents said, including the alleged incriminating notes that “might’ve caused Clinton serious damage.”

But what did the documents pertain to?

The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an “after-action review” prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration’s actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration’s awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil.

-Ibid.

So now we know what the documents were, why they were written, and we have the originals in our possession, so no information and — specifically — no incriminating notes by anyone on the administration, especially Bubba hisself, were lost.

That does not mean that Berger did not commit a crime, nor does it mean that he has not paid his debt to society. He was charged, admitted his crime, and rather than undergoing a lengthy and expensive trial which would have largely resulted in the same outcome, he settled with Justice, paid a fine and lost his security clearance for 3 years. Let’s remember, this is the same Justice department run by republiCONs. Had Ashcroft and then Gonzales thought for one moment that they stood a chance of proving a greater crime, Justice would not have simply settled.

So, we have a minor crime which resulted in no loss of information, nor any exposure to any outside influence, we have an admission of guilt by the perputrator, we have restitution and finally, closure.

Why did Berger do it? There are only three possible reasons. 1) He’s crazy; 2) He got confused; 3) He thought the docs said something he didn’t want others to know. The documents are classified, so we have to take the republiCONs at Justice at face value and assume that if the documents said something Berger wanted to cover up, they wouldn’t have accepted the settlement. If Berger is crazy, he shouldn’t be trusted with classified information, which is now come to pass. If he was confused, he should have just confessed to be confused, and had his security clearance suspended. Oops, that’s what happened… are we to assume that he was just confused, then?

RepubliCONs suddenly growing a spine? Hardly. More like Karl Rove’s mudslinging — or perhaps I should say — shoveling sh*t against the tide. The republiCONs are now resorting to dredging up resolved non-issues in an effort to cover up their misdeeds.

Unless, of course, the documents said something that the republiCONs didn’t want known, either. Now, how’s that for a conspiracy theory?

GOP hacks, led by uber-hacks Duncan Hunter and James Sensenbrenner call for an investigation of Sandy Berger to ascertain the full extent of Clinton’s blameworthiness for every disaster taking place on George Bush’s watch:
WASHINGTON â…

What a joke the republiCON controlled House is.