Here is about the only thing Sandy Berger did sloppily and inadvertently- his document pilfering was soblatant that the staff was supiscious after his first visit. They then set up a little sting operation:
Last Oct. 2, former Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger stayed huddled over papers at the National Archives until 8 p.m.
What he did not know as he labored through that long Thursday was that the same Archives employees who were solicitously retrieving documents for him were also watching their important visitor with a suspicious eye.
After Berger’s previous visit, in September, Archives officials believed documents were missing. This time, they specially coded the papers to more easily tell whether some disappeared, said government officials and legal sources familiar with the case.
The notion of one of Washington’s most respected foreign policy figures being subjected to treatment that had at least a faint odor of a sting operation is a strange one. But the peculiarities — and conflicting versions of events and possible motives — were just then beginning in a case that this week bucked Berger out of an esteemed position as a leader of the Democratic government-in-waiting that had assembled around presidential nominee John F. Kerry.
As his attorneys tell it, Berger had no idea in October that documents were missing from the Archives, or that archivists suspected him in the disappearance. It was not until two days later, on Saturday, Oct. 4, that he was contacted by Archives employees who said that they were concerned about missing files, from his September and October visits. This call — in Berger’s version of the chronology, which is disputed in essential respects by a government official with knowledge of the investigation — was made with a tone of concern, but not accusation.
I really want this liar to go down- too many of the Clinton era swine managed to weasel their way out of everything. Now we have one dead to rights.
Why? Why would this person do this? What was he hiding? That is what I would like to know. What papers did he take? What did they say?
“Too many of the Clinton era swine managed to weasel their way out of everything. Now we have one dead to rights.”
Okay, seriously, partisan witchhunt.
I’d be content to conduct this in a completely nonpartisan fashion, Kimmitt. If it were Condi Rice having done this, my feelings would be the same. I, personally, don’t have much in the way of feelings one way or the other about Sandy Berger, other than he was extraordinarily careless with classified documents.
Sure Kimmitt, it’s a witch hunt. Nevermind those classified documents stuffed down his pants….
I hope the Justice Department is offering Berger a plea deal if he will truthfully testify against whoever sent him. And Kimmitt, the witch hunt is over. We found her, she’s the junior Senator from New York.
“I’d be content to conduct this in a completely nonpartisan fashion, Kimmitt.”
It’s good to see you say that, Slart, though disappointing that John is, for whatever reason, only interested in seeing “Clinton-era swine… go down.”
I look forward to equal passion from you, Slart, on seeing Republicans who betrayed secrets and the law “go down,” and certainly never be employed in government, or spoken of with respect, again.
I assume you want to make sure that people such as Abrams, or John Poindexter, who sold major arms to the Iranian mullahs, never work in government again, right?
How about you, John? I realize that selling arms to the mullahs, and stealing the profits to use in another violation of the law isn’t as serious as what Berger did, but whaddya think?
Re the Farber comment above…it’s always amazing to see the “moral equivalencies” that are drawn by those trying to defend and/or downplay the significance of what one’s political bedfellow has just been caught doing. And I hope nobody will bring up the countless pardons made by Mr. Farber’s favorite President to any and all felons with campaign cash to hand out.
Right on, Gary.
And John, how ’bout John Dillinger? You’ve never condemned him yet. I presume you wouldn’t want him being president.
What about Jack the Ripper? I’ve never heard a thing about him on this site. Or for that matter George Steinbrenner?
Huh? No reply, huh?
Not that I’m changing the subject or anything…
Unsurprisingly, Kimmitt brings up a completely unrelated case to Show How We’re All Wrong.
It’s a little unclear what GHWB’s pardoning of some people who were involved in arms deals seventeen years ago has to do with Berger’s compromise of classified material, but I’m fully confident that Kimmitt’s story-telling abilities (not to mention his mad skills with metaphor) are up to the task.
I’ve posted my email address here any case there is anyone interested in explaining to me all the hatred against the Clintons. I really have never understood what is so detestable about them and would like to be able to have a reasonable discussion with someone about it. As far as the Sandy Berger story goes, there are so many conflicting stories out there; why isn’t anyone concerned aboout what that means, about this whole trying folks in the media that’s become the scourge of civil society. Don’t we share a desire for civil society, a hallmark of which is protecting the rights of the accused, anymore? I’m asking this as a serious question and would be happy to have folks share their thoughts. AS a committed skeptic, I can say that to date, all the versions we’ve heard about the Berger story are possibly true, though some are improbable. The thing that disturbs me is that we debate such events in such partisan manner when what I believe we should be doing is talking about the state of world, the economy, our goals for the future and the work and sacrifice we’re willing to embrace to turn those aims into realities.
Fuck civil society.
No, that’s not what I meant to say. What I meant to say is this: Some people have no axe to grind in the matter of former Clinton administration officials. Some people have possessed security clearances for over two decades, and are shocked and disgusted about what a former NSA (hey, could have been a former Reagan NSA, for all I care) has done, whether it was carelessly or maliciously.
That is all. Can’t speak for John, because, well, I’m not him.
What is clear from Mr. Berger’s remarks is that he committed a crime. We still don’t know his motive for committing the crime. Whether he stuck papers in his shorts, socks, or whatever, is not relevant (except maybe to show he had a plan to commit a crime).
What are the conflicting stories you are talking about?
As far as Bill Clinton is concerned, there are books written about him. Try reading some that are not written by his apologists.
This is one of bush’s mistakes. He should not have kept anyone from the Clinton administration on his staff. This guy was a knuckleheaded Cronie from the word go. “like Bubba, like son.”
Slarti, did I change my name to “Kimmit” recently?
“Some people have no axe to grind in the matter of former Clinton administration officials.”
Indeed. But not John. He said: “I really want this liar to go down- too many of the Clinton era swine managed to weasel their way out of everything. Now we have one dead to rights.”
Which makes clear that John has no interest in justice. No interest in dealing justice to those who violate the secrecy of documents, or commit far worse crimes against national security and our nation. No interest in dispassionately seeing that former NSAs who violate our trust don’t work in government again.
No, it’s about getting “Clinton era swine.”
Which is the answer to your query about “what GHWB’s pardoning of some people who were involved in arms deals seventeen years ago has to do with Berger’s compromise of classified material.”
I’ll be happy to see Berger dealt with justly by our justice system. I’m sure you must feel equally passionately that former NSA Poindexter shouldn’t work in government again, or that Elliot Abrams shouldn’t, right? Since you have no ax to grind, and are just applying equal standards.
If so, we can all agree to this applying of equal standards, and wouldn’t that be nice and non-partisan?
“Slarti, did I change my name to “Kimmit” recently?”
Oops. My apologies to you both. Never post after eating at the local German place, should be my rule.
“Which makes clear that John has no interest in justice. ”
No, it doesn’t. That requires some assumptions on your part that, were I John, would be offensive.
“Since you have no ax to grind, and are just applying equal standards.”
The concept of equal standards doesn’t apply here, Gary. You’re comparing apples and orange juice.
Sorry to be slow getting back. Conflicting stories are: whether or not he removed copies or originals; whether he removed multiple copies of same document, multiple drafts of a single document or distinctly different documents. This is why I deplore trying events in the press like this. The public doesn’t receive agreed upon facts; it gets rumor, speculation and innuendo. I can see how this serves the interests of party politics, but not the American public.
Besides Rumor, speculation and innuendo, the public gets spoon-fed a lot of spin, especially coming from Berger’s Democrat associates that it’s somehow a Bush/RNC Conspiracy. Jesus…
Berger has admitted to pilferring the classified documents. The big questions are why, and for whose benefit?
It’s a pitiful situation at best, perhaps a product of our politically changing times. Whom can you trust anymore?
cs, at the risk of repeating myself, it’s irrelevant that he removed copies of classified documents instead of the original. Each copy has the same level of classification as the original, and can result in the same damage if compromised.
Slartibartfast — Yes, I see your point. My point is merely that there is a lot of conflicting information out there, that we all become the victims of these unattributed accounts.
Like CadillacJag says, we are reduced to the “whom do we trust” question retreat into faith-based partisanship on all sides.
I’m sure that out there somewhere in America, there is a Republican who I agree with on some political issue, or who supported someone I once supported, who is either committing some crime, misdeed, or atrocity. And for that, I condemn them.
There’s your quote.
Now, would you care to STOP trying to play the “yeah, but what about the GOP?” game? I have a 6 year old and it’s pretty pathetic when she wants to narc on her little brother for some misdeed when I catch her hand in the cookie jar, and your attitude in trying to muddy the water here is no less disconcerting.
It wouldn’t be much different than John saying “yeah, but what about Marion Barry?” should some GOPer get caught in a drug sting.
I mean, seriously, Oliver Willis has the patent on the 6th day argument, anyway, doesn’t he?
Agreed. Accurate information is important, and we rarely get that from the press.
RW — The parallel you draw intrigues me as I raised two daughters and heard that particular gambit from time to time. Occassionally they were able to demonstrate that I had treated more-or-less equal offenses differently on occassion — either because of the mood I was in or because my understanding and expectations changed as my experience grew. My adult kids tell me know that the “punishment” they really dreaded was having to hash out the reasons behind such uneven consequences with me. But both of them tell me they came to understand that I loved them equally, and while often an imperfect parent (in other words, a parent period), I was never a partisan one.
Oops. Forgot to add my question for Willyb if he’s around or returns. I haven’t read Clinton books, or Bush books, for that matter. What I’d like to have is a discussion with folks willing to tell my why they personally find/found him so objectionable. I had problems with Clinton, too, but they had to do with policies and didn’t generate in my the emotional responses so many seem to fee/have felt toward him.
I never hated Clinton. I didn’t like him very much, in no small part b/c in my own areas of interest (defense and foreign policy), I thought he:
1. Pursued goals that were irrelevant to the larger American interest (e.g., Haiti);
2. Pursued goals that could (and sometimes SHOULD) have been left to others (e.g., Bosnia, Kosovo);
3. Failed to keep up in areas that desperately needed it (e.g., North Korea and coddling them).
OTOH, I thought that, as only Nixon could go to China, he did a very good job on trade (e.g., NAFTA and WTO), in no small part b/c he was a Democrat. And let’s be honest—only a Democrat could SIGN a bill on welfare reform, never mind that it could only be drawn up and passed by a GOP Congress.
I think, however, that I liked him less as a person than as a politician, in large part b/c he wasn’t serious—whatever you might think about Starr’s investigation, there’s a tackiness about getting a BJ in the White House, in the Oval Office, and worse, there’s a level of demeaning of the office.
He reminded me of folks I knew in college—people who were obviously smart, but were intent on using that smartness to skim along in life; and in the process revel at what they could get away with.
I might like some of what he did as President, I didn’t like him for much of what he did as President, but I don’t RESPECT him as a person for what he did to the OFFICE of the Presidency.
Dean — Thanks a lot for taking my questions seriously. Can you recommend a good site/blog for discussions of defence and foreign policy from multiple perspectives?
I’d suggest “command-post.org” for one of the beter round-ups on foreign policy and defense, esp. the WoT.
windsofchange.net does a really good job on regional issues, w/ once-a-week round-ups of news from places like Africa and Asia.
strategypage.com (I think that’s it) has its own views on defense issues. I’d take it, stratfor, and especially debkafiles reports with BIG grains of salt, but they DO touch on some interesting ideas and issues (look for the outlines, not the details).
Many of the military blogs, e.g., Sgt. Stryker, lt-smash, etc., give you one soldier/sailor/airman’s (any Marines blogging?) view. It’s not DOD, but it’s not armchair strategists, either. (And it gives the lie to much of the “chickenhawk” BS that’s bandied about.)
My guess is that there’s probably some left-wing military/foreign policy bloggers out there, but I personally haven’t seen any I’d recommend (and note the caveats on the ones above, which are generally on the more conservative side of the fence).
Along these lines, let me make a suggestion that, for all of these blogs, the most useful is usually the posting. Comments are much less enlightening (sometimes), and more prone to heat than light (most of the time).
Not to say there aren’t perceptive comments in the comments (like this one, haha!), just that you have to do a lot more threshing to separate wheat from chaff. (Not that you don’t in the postings as well.)
Thanks, again Dean. I find that when I begin reading a new blog I stick with posts in the beginning til I feel up to speed, then start checking out comments. Often, I end up just scanning them for possibly informative links.
Now for the Ronson initiator:
I think that Charles Johnson’s “littlegreenfootballs” weblog does yeoman service in bringing to light some of the frankly scary bigotry out there. His regular reporting on what is preached in some of the mosques in Arab and Western countries is truly disturbing.
Charles cites a fair number of MEMRI reports, which I’ve yet to see be debunked. Even IF they are selective, the volume suggests that it’s not especially selective, i.e., the level of vitriol aimed at us is enough to be worth taking notice.
(I would add, again, that his comments section is not necessarily of the same quality, and there are often nasty and sometimes racist exchanges in there.)
As the 9-11 Commission apparently included in its report, the strain of Islam that has yielded a bin Laden and the like is one that views itself at war w/ us, and is one that wants us, in essence, dead. While this is not all of Islam (IMHO), it represents a very dangerous strain—one that needs to be watched and studied, and not pooh-poohed.
Best of luck, cs, in exploring what’s out in the blogosphere! (And actually, our host here has a pretty good blog, in terms of expressing HIS views on the world at large.)
I did not and do not hate Bill Clinton. I disliked the apologists in his party and the media that gave him a pass on his commission of a crime (lying to a grand jury). This whole affair was really spun by these folks, and if it were a Republican, the outrage would have been deafening. If you were paying attention during his terms in office, there were a lot of other controversial things going on (space technology sold to China, campaign contributions by foreigners, etc., etc.).
As far as his policies were concerned, I was against his putting our military under UN/NATO command, and would not have sent troops to Bosnia. His leadership in Somalia was atrocious. And while the American public in general did not understand the seriousness of the terror issue, he should have. His whole handling of this issue as a criminal matter hurt the country’s efforts to deal with terror. These things are just the tip of the iceberg with the Clintons. Read a book for details.
Thanks for the more detailed answere, willyb.
Please check out my political enquiry blog:
Genuine request for information: My understanding is that the Bush Administration’s current policy is to try to buy off the North Korean nuclear program (e.g. “coddle” them), based on this and other articles. Is this false?
Golly, I haven’t witnessed such right-wing hand-wringing & leg-humping since, hmm, let me think, yeah, last week’s Wilson slimefest.* I wonder if the two could be related in any way, not that I’m questioning the timing, mind you–that would be overly partisan–just the fortuity.
At the very least, the two situations do provide an edifying contrast. Remember when the Plame story first surfaced? The right-wing admonished a slow approach. The statutes were parsed ad nauseum. Hell, Glenn Reynolds suffered such a massive brainfart that Ms. Insty had to throw out all his Vols caps. Yet with Berger, so many on the right are eager to jail him now. No trial or tedious need to review a statute that itself undoubtedly contains an element of intent, and hence the meaningfulness of “inadvertance” as a possible defence. Too, as has been admitted by the more reasonable here, we just don’t know the facts. Stuffing something into his shoes? Spare us, please.
The double bind in play here is illustrative as well. Berger pilfered the documents either to help the Kerry campaign, presumably because there’s something positive to be learned from the millenium documents, or to protect Clinton, because their damming (or perhaps Clinton had doodled a pair of breasts in the margin of his copy.) A mutually exclusive two-fer slime, what could be better? No discussion of an innocent explanation, no claim that this vile criminal deed was somehow justified by, say, 9/11 hearing preparation or (cough) nepotism, we should just lock the fat bastard up because the Clinton administration got away with so much in those years of the perpetual special prosecutor. (John, you probably believe that since no such prosecutor has been appointed during the Bush administration that they are squeaky clean, regardless of the fact that his party also controls both houses which initiate such investigations.)
The desperation is palpable, boys, and I keep wondering: why? The Plame indictments? The 9/11 commission report? Just now, it struck me: the impending Kerry landslide. I’ll take that.
*By the way, very nice exchange near the end of this tread, Dean, cs & others, notwithstanding the “I don’t hate Clinton; I just dislike him very, very, very much, because of his policies,” from the same people spit out Bush-hater like it was catchy tune stuck in their heads forever. Slarti & Gary, too, invariably cool, and well-armed. Perhaps John should solicit one blog neopphyte per week, alternately right and left, and perhaps we can help curb the politics of disdain in this land of snark. Don’t enforce civility too strictly, though, because I’m liable to be banned for life, and I do like it here.
Based on your “contributions” on this and other threads, I have no reason whatsoever to believe that this is a genuine questoin, especially having tried to explain this to you repeatedly (and experienced your stupid “toast” comparison repeatedly).
I’ve got better things to do, like ironing my underwear or counting blue M&Ms, than go through that again with you.
CS has not repeatedly tried to make stupid points or painted with such a broad brush that two strokes would cover either the US east of the Mississippi or half of your ass. HIM I’m prepared to give a few suggestions to.
YOU? Go read John’s archives.
Take a pill, or something.
The Berger and Plame issues are not comparable. This has been described more fully under a different blog, ” THE USUAL SUSPECTS.” Valerie Plame’s “outing” is an open investigation with no one admitting that they committed a crime; whereas, Berger has admitted he committed a CRIME and is saying that it was inadvertent, or, perhaps more accurately, serially inadvertent.
I’m certainly waiting to find out what will happen to Berger, but based on what is being reported, he has admitted committing a crime. It is of course irrelevant where on his person he placed the classified documents that he removed from the Archives ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. (which draws me to the conclusion that it was not inadvertent). I will be interested to understand his motive for this crime. Based on what’s been reported, Kerry did not know Berger was under investigation. As far as I know, this has nothing to do with John Kerry.
There’s no way in hell that Berger’s admitted to having committed a CRIME, not with his lawyer so close in tow. He’s admitted that he took some documents & notes. YOU’RE saying he committed a crime without knowing either all (really, any) of the facts or the applicable statutes and caselaw.
And, sure, the situations are comparable, but my intention, really, was to highlight the contrast between the reactions on the right to two accusations of misdeeds in their early stages. Not that it’s particularly reprehensible to hack to a double-standard, we all do at times. But let’s call it what it is & reflect the next time we disparage another’s partisanship (or in John’s sweet words, the democrats “naked lust for power”–as if the average democratic voter will be issued a republican-voting slave after the landslide).
Oh, and tonight, no pills: I’m treating myself to powder…and a threesome. Hey, after the landslide, it should be a five-some, assuming our lone conservative isn’t rounded up. I know that none of us will rat her out.
You apparently didn’t take the time to read the other blog. IT IS A CRIME TO REMOVE DOCUMENTS FROM THE ARCHIVES WITHOUT PERMISSION. Not just once, but at least twice. That’s what Berger admitted to doing. Do you understand??? Do you think he would admit anything if someone was making this up?
You act like you can go out and commit and crime and everything’s okay if you say you did it inadvertently. Get a clue!
When you see folks pimping the Clinton Chronicles, then you can probably declare them to be Clinton-haters.
Until then, the folks salivating over Michael Moore’s trash and having circle jerks when Krugman publishes an article are likely to be Bush haters.
No need to try to parse the obvious.
Am I the only one that discerns a little of the same insanity in both “Kimmitt’s” and “Bloggerhead’s” comments? Could they be one and the same person, that is to say, complete and total wackos???? Probably, the answer is “YES!”
I didn’t hate everything that Clinton did – just the man himself.
His foreign policy was painfully stupid. It can be summed up as “we will take action only in places that are of no consequence to the United States, so that we cannot be accused of going to war for our own benefit like European colonial powers did.” While the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo were fine, on their own merits, the failure to intervene in a similar humanitarian nightmare in Rwanda is a black mark on Clinton, as were the repeated shunned opportunities to take out Bin Laden.
Yet I don’t hold that against him.
What I hold against him is his cloying, personal calumny, in which he assumed either (1) we are all too dumb to see through his lies; or (2) we want to love him so much, we’ll pretend to believe him even though he knows he is lying. A good example is in Lanny Davis’ book – he talks about how so many things that he spun were flat out lies, that he was amazed that nobody called him out on it.
In Clinton’s case, the pattern continues. He was giving a sort of stump speech a while back praising his fidelity to the rule of law, saying that he could have taken bin Laden from Sudan, but he just didn’t think we could successfully prosecute him, so he held off. When asked about whether he had opportunity to do this by the 9/11 Commission, he sais “no, I don’t recall any evidence of that.” A couple weeks ago, a tape surfaced of him giving that speech to a business group saying that he could have taken bin Laden of the Sudanese’ hands, etc.
Sure enough, a tape surfaced proving that he had said it. The 9/11 Commission charitably chalked this up to Clinton misspeaking, but hey, I’m an attorney, and I can spot it when someone is changing the terms of a question in order to lie. It’s clear to me what he was trying to do – to evade any responsibility by changing the subject. If you look at the Q&A, you can see this.
Q: “Did you have a chance to get bin Laden from the Sudanese?”
A: “There’s no evidence of that.”
An ordinary person would take this as a denial, as referring to the offer of the Sudanese as being invalid. But if you look at things closely, it’s clear there is an evasion. Rather than take bin Laden, the Administration negotiated with Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and finally the Taliban to take him.
In light of that fact, Clinton’s evasion actually means “maybe the Sudanese did offer him, but you can’t prove it.”
And of course, we still can’t. Even though there is a tape of one of the speeches in which he said he could have taken bin Laden, he can point to his speech and claim he is being taken out of context, it’s a right wing hit job, he was just kidding – and he will get away with it.
And that’s really why I hate him. He brought low-rent trial lawyer skills (and requirements) into politics. “Yes” and “no” no longer mean yes or no, and any major politician is going to have a team of spin doctors working 24-7 to inject partisan poison and flat out lies into the public debate. It’s a nifty way to win your partisan battles, if you don’t mind turning politics from a sometimes heated art involving compromise, into a hostile deposition. I happen to mind, greatly.
A quickie, Ricky, and then off to talk Nascar.
So, you’re saying that only those who believe in the Clinton body-count may be deemed Clinton-haters, but aficionados of a fine NYT editorialist are to be regarded as Bush-haters. Thanks for making my point for me.
As for F9/11, no one that I know, across the political spectrum, has emerged from that film hating Bush. They’re just not sure he should be president.
Berger has *admitted* he took the documents (in front of his lawyer, or through his lawyer). Whether *you* think this is confessing a crime or not, it is confessing that he broke the law.
Or, to put it this way: If a bank employee admitted that he took several hundred thousand dollars in cash, several times, do you think he’s admitting that he committed a crime?
As for reaction, you might want to check and see what it would require to prove that “outing” Valerie Plame would be a crime. And compare that to what happened in the Berger case.
Anyone who reads the NYT editorialists without a large dose of skeptism is merely a fool…
So what is bloggerhead?
“…but aficionados of a fine NYT editorialist are to be regarded as Bush-haters.”
Krugman a “fine editorialist?” LOL! Yeah, and I’m sure you admire Ann Coulter just as much. Better factual writer, after all.
“Yeah, and I’m sure you admire Ann Coulter just as much. Better factual writer, after all.”
I’ve seen several posts purporting to refute Professor Krugman’s articles. All of them have been either deliberately misleading or obviously false. This whole “Krugman is a liar” thing is better understood as a “Krugman dares to contradict the Prophet Bush and must be stoned” thing.
Much like how the last paragraph in the post which crowns this thread describes what this Berger thing is about — “getting” someone who served in the Clinton Administration. It’s all about partisan points, and what is actually true, fair, or good policy is more or less completely irrelevant.
cs, I’m a Clinton-hater. I’ll tell you why.
He lied when the truth would have served as well. He lied in such a way that he was accusing me of being stupid “I didn’t inhale”,
“I didn’t have sexual relations with that women”(while wagging his finger in my face).
He rented out the Lincoln bedroom. Now, many presidents have allowed contributors to stay there, but Clinton took money for the right to sleep their. He didn’t invite people with whom he had a relationship for years. He even had foreign nationals, communist Chinese, stay there for $100K a night.
He accepted campaign contributions from enemies (Communist China) and allowed companies such as Loral to sell them advanced computer equipment that helped their nuclear program and also allowed them to sell advanced rocket technology to be better able to deliver their improved nukes.
He allowed Al Gore to make a deal with Chernomyrdin that broke a law that Al had sponsored when he was a senator. This deal allowed Russia to sell advanced weaponry to Iran, (stuff that is designed to blow up our stuff) without slapping sanctions on Russia, as required by said law.
There’s more, much more. I am trying to forget it, but the Clintonistas just won’t go away. Now Berger is caught breaking the law. We see all the Clinton defenses coming up. First, lie, lie, lie. When caught in a lie, admit only that much. Make up silly excuses that a pliant press will accept (inadvertent, even though it happened multiple times), attack the GOP (the curious timing of the leak, even though there is no proof that a Republican did the leaking), and next will be a smear of the accuser.
Clinton was the Walmart president, no class and everything was for sale. That’s why I hate him. He dirtied my country.
“All of them have been either deliberately misleading or obviously false.”
But Kimmett, that’s basically the complaint about Kruggie’s Kolumns.
Ahem, there have been plenty of folks who left F9/11 hating Bush….the notion that Bush knowingly sent soldiers to die in order to enrich his buddies, the bin ladens, as presented in the film sorta would make anyone think such.
BTW, the “Fine editorialist” has been caught in so many instances of lying just because he hates Bush (his contention that we haven’t increased spending springs to mind, as opposed to the 40% increase during 43’s 3 years).
But, I see word parsing is going to be the M.O. when facts are presented, so I’ll let things be…
“But Kimmett, that’s basically the complaint about Kruggie’s Kolumns.”
Well, yes. Psychologists refer to the phenomenon as “projection.”
And fact-checkers refer to as “projectile vomit.”
Fact-checking is an exact science. Psychology is not.