As are you my friend...as are you.

To confirm the Rather bias...If you have MSNBC, or any of you do, the Scarborough re-run will run the Rather clip...Rather totally ignores the serious breach and instead hands off the propaganda to the schill with the left-wing spin.

DAN RATHER: ".... CBS's John Roberts reports this was triggered by a carefully orchestrated leak about Berger, and the timing of it appears to be no coincidence."


Maybe a gray area, but sure follows a Rather pattern.

In addition to the news about Sandy Berger which Rather only reluctantly reported, as detailed in item #1 above, in June of 1998 Rather asserted that the "carefully orchestrated leaks" of Lewinsky tapes released earlier, which “were damaging to the Clinton camp, may not have told the whole story." Exactly two years later, on June 22, 2000, Rather introduced a story about how “Vice President Gore is also on the spot tonight over a new, carefully orchestrated leak involving accusations about Gore's past campaign fundraising practices.” On the night Al Gore was set to address the Democratic convention in August of 2000, Rather intoned on the CBS Evening News: “Al Gore must stand and deliver here tonight as the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. And now Gore must do so against the backdrop of a potentially damaging, carefully orchestrated story leak about President Clinton.” Rather used the same formulation later during CBS’s prime time coverage but, in fact, the leak came from a Carter-appointed federal judge. MRC

Dan Rather biased?....Nahhhhhhhh



Now, go make me a sammich.

It has to be a deliberate intention to mislead - this may not meet that criteria. There is certainly circumstantial evidence...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126428,00.html

In fact, I'll tell you what. I'll agree that Rather and Roberts both "technically" lied, if you'll agree that you believe that the leak (which it is - it didn't just uncover itself), is politically motivated (which only the naive would disbelieve).

http://www.news-leader.com/today/0722-Guardsleft-138802.html .. it's short.

" It is prohibited to make notes about the secret files and leave with them without special approval."

I think, Cam, the Democrat brand of socialism is alien to your understanding...It is a depraved, warped, deceptive brand that will contrive any type of lie in order to gain and hold power...This, I think, is where you have a disconnect understanding American socialism and its purveyors.

Bill Clinton's press secretary says this (more circumstantially)...

"The first rule of damage control when you're in the White House is to find an alternative story line. I think they've found one," Lockhart said. "There's absolutely no evidence that (Berger) made anything more than an honest mistake. No amount of character assassination can change that."

...find an alternative story line?...There's absolutely no evidence that (Berger) make anything more than an honest mistake?


You've gotta be kidding me...These guys are liars...no they are worse...these guys are bearing false witness for political expediency...They are impotently trying to shift focus away from treasonous behavior, onto Republicans...They are politicizing their own criminality at a corporate level.

"politically motivated " . . ah, yeah. . .he is/was a top level POLITICIAN!

News that we had a fox guarding the 9/11 info "hen-house" is huge news.

The problem you are having here, is you believe the liars...Berger's people leaked the story.

Can you believe the 9/11 commission is whistling past the graveyard...They are acting like "no big deal", and releasing the report as scheduled....WTF????....Jamie Goerlick orchestrated the wall hamstringing the CIA, Richard Clarke got caught lying, and now Sandy Bergler intentionally committed felonies....

nothing to see here...bipartisan committee...yada yada yada...WTF????????

I think, Cam, the Democrat brand of socialism is alien to your understanding...It is a depraved, warped, deceptive brand that will contrive any type of lie in order to gain and hold power...This, I think, is where you have a disconnect understanding American socialism and its purveyors.

Maybe so, but what I see suggests that it is little better (if at all) on the Republican side of the fence.

You've gotta be kidding me...These guys are liars...no, worse...these guys are bearing false witness for political expediency...They are impotently trying to shift focus away from treasonous behavior, onto Republicans...They are politicizing their own criminality at a corporate level.

Ah, but the problem is that the timing of the leak has already politicised it --> what do you expect? That (if it is the case - there is, after all, an investigation under way) Berger will admit that he stole the documents as part of a combination Democrat Clinton coverup/Kerry advancing conspiracy (the heavily politicised mud being thrown by the Right)?

Of course not - whether he is guilty or not of something more than an innocent mistake (and if he didn't admit to it, he is innocent until proven guilty), he is always going to say it was innocent.

Berger's people leaked the story eh? Would be interested to see evidence of that. Somehow, I doubt it.

Have you read the report (which isn't out)? What difference would it make to the outcome? Stop getting your panties in a wad. Unless the report is accompanied by criticism from a member on the committee stating they disagree with releasing it based on the things you talk about, then what the hell does it matter?

You're basically calling into question the integrity of the half-dozen Republicans on the committee (well, and the Democrats, but I know you are ok with that ;)).

seems feasible that the Clinton Dem's wanted to control how this came out, as much as possible. . .moore htan if the republicans broke the full case out at once.

Here we get Clinton saying "hahaha. . .that messy Sandy. . we use-ta all joke 'bout how messy his desk was. . jus all a big mistake . . ."

The one thing I see, is something motivated Sandy Berger to admit to some wrong doing . . .guys like him don't admit to ANYTHING w/o motivation. (he is a lawyer, btw)

There was a leak, and the leak mentions him having documents discovered in his house. If I were him, I'd be happy owning up to that too.

Reports from various news sources indicate that taking notes on what he read was 'not serious.'

The reason he had access in the first place was to prepare to testify, so note-taking would seem to be a logical thing to do.

The rules said you were supposed to allow your notes to be reviewed. He didn't -- for whatever reason.

It might be good to recall that Berger still has top secret clearance, and in any case, had likely seen most of the documents before.

So I can't get too excited about the note-taking.

The missing several drafts of the 'millennium after-action' memo seems like a purely political move. If Berger commissioned those drafts -- by Richard Clarke -- to be 'critical of Clinton administration anti-terror efforts' as claimed, the drafts might be political fodder. Removing and destroying them made them even more important.

Are there copies? The 'leak' hasn't revealed that little detail.

No unbiased source is available to report on the level of seriousness on this matter.

It certainly isn't worth all the hysteria of our nervous friends here. These aren't 'smoking gun' notes like the 8/6/01 PDB.

As for the Rather/Roberts excerpt, it's biased. If they had previously set up the point that the breaches were not serious -- and attributed statements supporting the 'lack of seriousness' to credible sources, they then could have gone on to talk about the political nature of the leak -- which is quite valid.

Within the quoted segment, they do not do that. But was it done in a prior segment? We really need the full context, not just a snippet of the news report.

We know the 9/11 Commission report avoids blaming either administration for 9/11, but there are so many errors and oversights that contributed to the success of that attack that it's deeply embarrassing to the Bush Administration. Leaking selected information about an ongoing investigation helps weaken the 9/11 Commission's report. And who benefits most from that circumstance right now?

WOW! .. .so what you are saying is; the Rather piece is spin. . .but would not have been spin, IF there existed a "prior segment" of spin.

IFC (in-*******-credible)

edit: so really; IF there existed a "prior segment" of spin; then what? . .anything after that is simply supporting that spin, and can not be considered spin . .. just spin support?

This left-wing spin sentiment doesn't pass the smell test...If Republicans leaked it, which is highly suspect at best, and Berger was the presumptive Kerry czar of National Security, it would have been more advantageous to release the "leak" around the end of October.

The spin stinks...Berger's people released the leak in order to mitigate impending damage...If Republicans wanted to damage the 9/11 Commission, Ashcroft would have released the Burglar investigation months ago.

This just in -- Sandy Berger and Bruce Lindsay (Bill's lawyer) accompanied Bill Clinton to testify before the 9/11 Commission.

Oh come on - just a few posts above, you discredited the 9/11 commission using this as evidence. You've made dozens of gleeful posts, stopping short only of calling into question the parentage of every liberal politician, and now you think that this information did not get released at the most opportune time.

You gotta be kidding me.

I will agree that this information did get released at the most opportune time. . . the most opportune time for the Kerry ticket.

The polls say the vast majority of voters are allready entrenched in their decision. . .it's up to the whimsical, last-minute decision makers.

No doubt the Bush team would have liked to have it come out late October.

Note; the 9/11 commision report is out, and we little people :rolleyes: now know it did not need to be trivialized by the Bush team.

It wouldn’t have been more opportune for Kerry if it were released after the election?