|
|
Post by donkeydude on Jul 22, 2004 1:03:55 GMT -5
And, not to put too fine a point on it, if Bush is president, exactly what "Clinton administration" is there to be acting for? He was preparing to testify before the 9/11 commisson about what was known under the Clinton Administration. His actions were not uncommon at all he went to the archives to refresh is memory of his own notes taken during his time as national security advisor. He was took his own notes, while not the right thing to do, it didn't hurt anything. He is being nailed to wall because it's an election year and he was Kerry advisor. |
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 22, 2004 7:27:51 GMT -5
The originals were not taken so the documents are still there and available. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5463586/ No one but Sandy Burglar knows what he stole. He should be arrested and charged! [/color] |
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 22, 2004 7:41:49 GMT -5
He was preparing to testify before the 9/11 commisson about what was known under the Clinton Administration. His actions were not uncommon at all he went to the archives to refresh is memory of his own notes taken during his time as national security advisor. He was took his own notes, while not the right thing to do, it didn't hurt anything. He is being nailed to wall because it's an election year and he was Kerry advisor. Again!! YOU don't know what he took! Mr "Burglar's" word isn't worth repeating because he'll never tell what he really took.
He was SEEN stuffing papers down his pants and in his socks! He knew he was breaking the rules.
That was cpkmtyollified information he stole!
When will you libs stop making excuses for the real criminals?
Bush is called a liar and a murderer without any reason except hatred, but that doesn't seem to bother you. Here we have a thief caught in the act and you make excuses for him.
The Dems/communists say "because of his dedication to service, he should be given the benefit of the doubt".
No one ever gave the Republicans the benefit of the doubt. It was always the "seriousness of the charge" that counted. Accusations made against Republicans have to have Congressional investigations whether there is any evidence or not.
Here we have eye witnesses and they say "benefit of the doubt". There is no doubt. He was SEEN stealing cpkmtyollified papers which have since been "lost". A better way to say itr is Mr. Burglar shredded documents that would have shown the Clinton administration wasn't worried about terrorism while he was claining it was his "highest priority".
They complain about the "timing" of the leaked information. It might have been Democrats who leaked this out. It's no secret that Clinton wants his wife to be able to run for president in '08, so this may be a ploy to derail Kerry, who they think might win in November. This way the field would be wide open for a Democratic/communist candidate in '08.
You people still don't understand who the Clintons are.
[/color] |
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Jul 22, 2004 7:44:00 GMT -5
He was preparing to testify before the 9/11 commisson about what was known under the Clinton Administration. His actions were not uncommon at all he went to the archives to refresh is memory of his own notes taken during his time as national security advisor. He was took his own notes, while not the right thing to do, it didn't hurt anything. He is being nailed to wall because it's an election year and he was Kerry advisor. I was commenting on his explanation --that he was acting for the "Clinton Administration." If he had said, "I was preparing for my testimony" I wouldn't have made my comment. The fact that he walked out with "pkmtyolpword" documents, a clear violation of the law, says he is either up to no good or he's a blooming idiot, and possibly both. The fact that he walked out with multiple copies makes me think he's trying to round up all the copies of something he'd rather not come to light. (Lending credence to the "blooming idiot" theory). But, Dude, ask yourself this; if it had been Condoleeza Rice who had "inadvertently" taken and destroyed pkmtyolpword documents, would you be so quick to dismiss the action as an innocent mistake? Hmmm? I seriously doubt it. So why do you not afford the same degree of skepticism you would hold for Dr. Rice to Mr. Berger? It belies a certain intellectual dishonesty, if I may say so. Peace, LJ One last thing: How do you know that? -LJ |
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 22, 2004 7:53:19 GMT -5
I was commenting on his explanation --that he was acting for the "Clinton Administration." If he had said, "I was preparing for my testimony" I wouldn't have made my comment. The fact that he walked out with "pkmtyolpword" documents, a clear violation of the law, says he is either up to no good or he's a blooming idiot, and possibly both. The fact that he walked out with multiple copies makes me think he's trying to round up all the copies of something he'd rather not come to light. (Lending credence to the "blooming idiot" theory). But, Dude, ask yourself this; if it had been Condoleeza Rice who had "inadvertently" taken and destroyed pkmtyolpword documents, would you be so quick to dismiss the action as an innocent mistake? Hmmm? I seriously doubt it. So why do you not afford the same degree of skepticism you would hold for Dr. Rice to Mr. Berger? It belies a certain intellectual dishonesty, if I may say so. Peace, LJ One last thing: How do you know that? -LJ LJ, at least we can agree here. Republicans went to jail for less than what Burglar did.
Remember Daniel Elsburg and the Nixon administration?
How about the Watergate burglars? They didn't remove anything. Nixon lost his presidency for attemtping to cover up the mess.
I think the same standards should apply here.
[/color] |
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Jul 22, 2004 15:17:47 GMT -5
No one but Sandy Burglar knows what he stole. He should be arrested and charged! [/color][/quote] Well, if no one knows, what is there to charge him with? |
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Jul 22, 2004 17:30:25 GMT -5
Yeah, you'd think if they caught him stealing they would know what it is because it would be on his person and they would have confiscated it.
|
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Jul 23, 2004 8:34:42 GMT -5
Yeah, you'd think if they caught him stealing they would know what it is because it would be on his person and they would have confiscated it. Hmmm - though, that may have not been the first time he was caught..... |
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Jul 23, 2004 13:10:46 GMT -5
Yeah, you'd think if they caught him stealing they would know what it is because it would be on his person and they would have confiscated it. unless he took it as the tapes show and then, knowing he might get busted - destroyed the evidence and ***ing material?! |
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Jul 23, 2004 14:35:39 GMT -5
Personally, I think this is a horrible idea. I hate sand in my hamburgers.
--Y2Traf
sparty
|
|
