Yeah, because the investigation into Oil for Food certainly DIDN'T indict many of the movers and shakers in industry in THIS country who also happen to have BIG ties into THIS government..

Funny how that investigation DIDN'T point out how LAX the US (and the rest of the Security Council) was on inforcing the program..

Oh, wait.. it did..

Well, I'm sure we'll see mass resignations now.

And as for resignations.. Gee Mitch, I believe it was the President who said anyone involved in leaking an agents name would no longer work for "this White House", but then, when push came to shove, they are still there.

Rove leaked that information, of that, there is NO question, but he's still there...hmmmm...

The only thing that was apparent from Libby being gone so fast was that they knew full well he was going to be gone... other than that, to claim this White House is somehow scrupulous is so absurd it's like calling Clinton abstinant.

PB

"Unlike, oh, I dunno, the entire upper management of a certain self-appointed world pseudogovernment I could name..."

How UN-professional of you to so UN-ashamaedly and UN-abashedly throw about UN-substantiated rumors like this. This kind of UN-productive writing is the reason that blogs like this, and bloggers like you, will remain UN-popular, UN-influential, and dare I say, UN-known in your little world of UN-thinking, UN-believeable, UN-reasonable, UN-approachable, UN-influential, UN-logical, UN-appealing, and UN-educated grimy little wanna-be pundits.

UN-sincerely yours,
Kofi Annan and George Galloway.

"Rove leaked that information, of that, there is NO question, but he's still there...hmmmm..."

How can you "leak" information that has already has appeared in a publicly available book AND magazine. Not to mention that when this all came down, she was already past the established timeframe of 5 years since her last covert assignment to be considered "undercover".

Why is it that the leftists always overlook those two facts...hmmmm....?

Bill C..

You need to actually try reading independent reports rather than the blather of Limbaugh.

Listen to Fitzgerald's indictment, Valerie Wilson's identity as a CIA Operative was not public... not at all... not even a little.

The biggest reason Rove hasn't (yet) been indicted is that he "miraculously" remembered an e-mail where he discussed hearing about the information from Cheney. He had testified (aka lied) that he had heard about it from reporters, when in fact they heard about it from him (Novak, Miller).

Again, please consider actually reading about this.

PB

PB, I'll tskr you seriously when you demonstrate some concern for Wilson's lack of honesty & integrity.

And just as a btw...

"maybe even a serious one", yeah, because deceiving the country into war and then lying and coercing people to cover it up, well, that's not serious...nope, not at all..

Neither is exposing a covert agent..

Read the indictment folks.. Fitzgerald was pretty clear in his conference, the reason there are not charges on other VERY SERIOUS charges is becasue Libby has lied, continues to lie, and will probably ALWAYS lie. Given how hard it is to get information, how likely it is that mostly they've destroyed the evidence, what did you seriously expect? A smoking gun?

As for Seriousness, you all voted to impeach the President of the Unites States, interrupt the business of the Government for less.. so this is so much hypocritical bullcrap coming from you.

Me, I'll continue to think that deceiving the country, repeatedly, nearly incessantly, is serious, even if it doesn't ever get proven in court, it's damned unethical, and you all ought to be ashamed of yourselves for putting up with it, minimizing it, and pretending it doesn't matter.

PB

Terry,

First, that's a lie, you wouldn't react seriously to anything I said, Wilson or otherwise.. so as for integrity...look in a mirror.

Second, Joe Wilson kept his mouth shut rather than expose his own government for better than 6 months. He filed his report privately. It wasn't until Bush the Lesser decided to start lying to the public that he went public.

Regardless, Joe Wilson is ONE person, one person who pointed out not just that the administration was lying, but maybe even that they had fraudulently presented data, forged data, to fool the American people into war. Whether you care about integrity and honesty is clearly pointed out by your lack of concern for the big picture.

You neo-nons want nothing other than tyrrany.. Lies are fine, but you'll destroy anyone who dares expose your lies...by calling them..liars, wow.. well, typical neo-non BS I suppose, call the Dems profligate spenders, special interest hounds while selling the White House to the highest corporate bidder... I guess not giving a crap because Joe Wilson isn't someone you like suits your typical ethos.

PB

PB I haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh in months. I'm at work when he's on and I can't listen to radio at work.

The fact that she was identified in Vanity Fair magazine and JOE WILSON'S OWN BOOK has no bearing on this whoe thing, eh?

"call the Dems profligate spenders, special interest hounds while selling the White House to the highest corporate bidder"

And that phrase is IDENTICAL to the stuff that spews out of Al FrankenFraud's mouth on a daily basis, excep switch dems to repubs, and switch "while" to "and".

Not every conservative/Republican agrees 100% with Bush and the leadership. Miers is a blindingly bright example. We just usually keep our mouths shut because even when the Republican leadership starts seeming to put on the RINO costume, they're STILL better than nothing....err....Democraps.

This says it all...

"Not every conservative/Republican agrees 100% with Bush and the leadership. Miers is a blindingly bright example. We just usually keep our mouths shut because even when the Republican leadership starts seeming to put on the RINO costume, they're STILL better than nothing....err....Democraps."

Hey Bill C... Democrats AREN'T in charge. Republicans are. Sitting back and keeping your collective mouth shut is the most glaringly honest confirmation of what WE have been saying for five fricking years. You tow the party line even when you KNOW it's wrong. Jesus Christ... Grow a spine.

By the way, while you were sitting comfortably in your little bubble playing the part of "Tommy", your republican leadership was busy growing the largest government in US history.

...and that whole balanced budget thing that Republicans made such a big deal out of in Clintons first term? Guess that only applies to democrats eh Bill?

Has everybody closed their eyes to what a monumental liar Joe Wilson is? The 9/11 Commission - Democrats and Republicans - called his NY Times piece a lie because it contradicted what he (Wilson) told the CIA in his report.

Doug, PB -- have either of you guys actually read the indictment? Anyone with any background and actual experience in the law could tell you this is nothing but conjecture about conspiracy based on hearsay. It's a "he said, she said" case that would never make it into civil court. It's political theater. Where's the crime? Supposedly in the conflicting testimony of witnesses, which happens in every courtroom in America every day.

If this were a civil action and not just another Spy Wars episode, no judge would entertain it and the attorney who brought it would probably be rebuked for failing to meet evidentiary standards and improper form. All that has happened is Libby has been indicted for recollecting events inconsistent with some other witnesses' recollection of events, as set forth in an "on or about" chronology constructed by the FBI over a two year period. THIS is what passes for a bill of particulars these days??

What Fitzgerald has to prove is first the chronology is in fact accurate, and then that not only did Libby not in fact believe what he said at some certain point in time, but that he also deliberately "misremembered" these events under oath with the intent to deceive the grand jury. And what's the proof? What Joe Wilson said. What Judy Miller said. What Tim Russert said. What Matt Cooper said. All of whom will be subjected to blistering cross-examination about their own recollection of events that happened over two years ago, and with Miller having already been trashed by her own employer, and Wilson completely discredited by the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee. Gentlemen, that is not a strong case. It's a bullshit case.

Not that Libby didn't lie. He may have. Who knows? The issue is whether or not it can be proved that he lied based on hearsay in a court of law, which has its own implications for evidentiary standards in every other court of law, which only further raises the bar. Fitzgerald has to prove a conspiracy, based on hearsay, about what was IN FACT the knowledge and intention of the defendant. How many angels do you think he can get to dance on the head of that pin?

What you really ought to be thinking about is how the day has finally arrived for the Left to align itself with the CIA. Doesn't it bother you that throughout this whole turgid story, no one at the CIA has ever taken responsibility for Wilson's trip to Niger? In the indictment, Fitzgerald's only reference on point is that a "senior" CIA officer advised Libby "that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip."

Really? How interesting. Was Mrs. Wilson running the CIA then? Did she in fact send her husband to Niger? Who paid for this trip? Who sponsored Joe Wilson's report? His wife? The CIA? The New York Times? If the origin of Fitzgerald's investigation was a breach of national security concerning the exposure of a covert CIA agent, then how come we end up with an indictment for obstruction of justice, false statement, and perjury Judge Judy would throw out of court and not treason or sedition inside the Oval Office? Because Fitzgerald knows he cannot make his case, that's why. It's only the charges that matter. So with his indictment of Libby, who is he protecting? The White House? The CIA? Or his own ass? By all means, let's go to trial.

But don't hold your breath. If Sandy Berger can rip off the National Archives after the WTC was bombed, I. Lewis Libby can make a few phone calls after an op-end in the NYTimes. So far there ain't no "there" there, gentlemen, and I fear you are going to be sorely disappointed when this dog and pony show is finally turned out to pasture.

Doug... agree..

Bill C.. RINO is an antiquated term at best.. First, you apply it to moderates who may well be in full agreement with many policies of actual conservatives, and then you apply it to anyone who doesn't agree with either the Neo-Con agenda, or the conservative agenda, depending on the day. The reason being that Neo-Con, and Con, have about nothing in common.

I would suggest perhaps that moderate republicans are FAR closer to conservatism than are Neo-Cons. Neo-Cons are fascists, pure and simple, they sell out the Government to business intersts, as Mussolini called it, Corporati il Stati (The Corporate State).

The fact that you fail to distinguish between the Neo-Nons and everyone else is your own responsibility, and for that matter, undoing.

If you think the President was wrong to attempt a messianic crusade in Iraq, it is not unpatriotic to say, it is in fact unpatriotic to NOT say so.

Regarding the indictment.. I listened to every word Fitzgerald said.. I have not read the full text of the indictment.. I will do so in order that I can respond to what Eracus said in his lengthy reply.

Fundamentally though, when you turn a blind eye to an attempt to lie the country into war and then intimidate anyone who would try to blow the cover on it, THAT's a BIG problem. Equating that to Sandy Berger is laughable in the extreme. Berger was doing research for his own response to points raised. He did NOT expose national secrets to the public air, but more than that, he did not attempt to subvert the 1st ammendment and for that matter the press. Regardless, changing the subject to Berger is odious (at best), in that again, Eracus did not stay on the important point, he, like Bill C, failed to hold people accountable that should be held accountable for BIG decisions and actions.

I will hold Joe Wilson accountable if you can show that he in fact exposed national secrets, or in some way jeapordized the nations interests (not just political interests). That he may have embellished his own telling of the tale, well, he is a politician, I don't have much hope for nearly ANY of them to be truthful, but for the advocates of this Blog to cry foul at the dishonesty of Wilson while turning a blind eye to the conduct of the Administration, when it is the Administration, not Wilson, that is charged with fully informing the public, allowing for a fair and honest decision to proceed to war, well, you'll have to pardon me for concluding that you don't care about the truth, you only care about winning your argument. You apparently will stay fully silent when there is a problem. THAT is the essence of permissiveness of tyranny. Freedom ain't free, stand up, say "NO" to ill-begotten wars, corporate croneyism, and if you like, profligate spending, but at least have a voice. You don't like this cabal (and the chucle-head at the head of it) any more than I do, but you acquiesce your freedom and that of your children in the name of politics, which will wind up making you precisely what you detest in Wilson; dishonest, political, and base.

PB

PB, Sandy Berger, the former National Security Advisor of the United States, to avoid trial admitted to stealing classified original documents from the National Archives then under subpoena by the 9/11 Commission and shredding them with a pair of scissors. He was not doing "research," he did not make a "mistake." He went to the National Archives, stole classified documents, and destroyed them. After his arrest and arraignment, he was convicted under a plea bargain in which he allocuted to his guilt for his actions, his purpose, and his intent before a court of law.

Obviously, Berger was prepared to accept irreparable damage to his career and reputation, not to mention damage the presidential candidacy of his party's nominee by withdrawing from the campaign, so that we, the people, would never find out what was in those documents. He DIRECTLY subverted the 1st Amendment of the people's right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, he DIRECTLY obstructed the most vital national security investigation of our time, and he DIRECTLY destroyed the historical record upon which all future national security policy will be based. It's a wonder he wasn't shot or hanged.

As for when you will hold Joe Wilson accountable for jeopardizing the nation's interests, it is a certainty that if you haven't even read the Libby indictment before issuing an uninformed opinion, then you have no doubt never read the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee's discussion of Joe Wilson. It is a matter of public record, and has been for quite some time, that he is a liar and a charlatan, which explains why not even Charlie Schumer will defend him and why poor ol' Joe is now complaining about death threats to anybody who will listen.

You don't do your homework, PB. You just rant and rave in pursuit of your delusions. You can do better. Aim higher.

Eracus said,

"Doesn't it bother you that throughout this whole turgid story, no one at the CIA has ever taken responsibility for Wilson's trip to Niger?"

Doesn't it bother you that before Wilson was sent to Niger, forged documents were produced and were later referenced by the President of the United States in the State of the Union address even though the CIA had made it clear that the information was bogus?

The Feith resignation is making a whole lot more sense these days...

Mr. Shit... meet Mr. Fan...

Eracus,

You've misrepresented or mistated the truth here.

First, Berger discarded, shredded if you like, though I don't recall that, COPIES of the documents, not those themselves.. so the impact to the US security establishment was NON-EXISTENT..again, you may want to read up on that.

Regarding an Uninformed opinion, first, have you read all 40 pages of the indictment? If so, bully for you, but it only came out on Friday, so get real.. the comments made by Fitzgerald certainly gave ample insight into the context of the indictments. Calling opinions formed from those comments and excerpts of the indictments uninformed is purely extremist hyperbole.

As for Berger, which "most important investigation of our time" are you saying he impaired, the 9/11 investigation? Hardly, and again, as for uninformed, you need to actually know the facts. He to photo copies, not actual documents, and frankly copies of information that was hardly considered pivitol to the investigation itself. The 9/11 commission had already viewed and detailed the information Berger had in his possession (and again, not SOLELY in his possession). You seem bent on pure hatred and overstatement. No one worth a grain of salt has said Berger impaired that investigation, yet here you are asserting as much.

The fact is that Wilson was a bit player, a minor actor on a major stage. His role was the refutation of Cheney's and Bush's claims about Niger, what he has done before or since, while probably base and political is like worrying about the color of Custer's Beret during the Penninsular campaign. It is only worth noting that Custer told McClellan, "It's THIS deep, General," when McClellan agonized over the depth of a stream he might need to ford. I don't condone Wilson, from what I've read though, and it's been plenty, Wilson has not mistated the inaccuracy of the President's claim about Yellow Cake, nor did he "make-up" the allegations of forged documents that have come out SINCE Wilson was even involved. Whether he overstated his orders, which there is evidence on BOTH sides, is relatively immaterial. The question is, WHO put national security at risk, WHO lied to the entire country regarding WMD and Niger, WHO perhaps lead us into war?

If you want to equate being a politician and overstating your own importance to misleading the American public into a very disasterous war (when all is said and done the impact to the US will be disasterous), well, okay for you, but I'll bet the American people won't see it as such.

Candidly, you sound like someone interested solely in overstating a minor point, and attempting to claim the other side is not informed over another minor point, when in fact it seems as if you don't have the facts in hand. Berger didn't destroy national secrets, and Wilson didn't lie about Niger.. try to stay on the subjects that actually matter, really, try. It would be decent to have a discussion with folks who can carry on one topic from one mooment to the next.

As for extremism, Bill C, I have one comment I have some hope you and the rest of tyrannical right will consider. When ultra-radical friends of mine refute criticisms of the black community for fear that it will give license and liberty to their "racist" critics, I castigate them. My response is, "You give them FAR more ammunition by NOT acknowledging your own faults. You appear to approve of counter discrimination, and to the AVERAGE person, not the ultra-right racists, who will hate you no matter what, you appear incapable of doing anything other than making the problem worse."

My advice is the same here. Again, whether you understand it or not, I'm not a friend of the Democratic leadership, I have similar issues with both ends of the spectrum. Rather than engage in civil discourse, in charting a path toward common ground, decency, and through it, success and progress, both sides, like Eracus, insist on arguing dead, meaningless, trivial points, rather than seeing the bigger picture.

It will result in what it resulted in before, a Civil War that NONE of us will be glad of. Believing that because you hold power, in the words of Brother Job, "you can demean the vanquished" is the mark of faithlessness and separation from God. Be careful what you pursue, usually it will pursue you in the end.

PB

Eracus,

One other thing, quote the public record regarding Wilson that you claim says he lied. Please.

PB

Ok Eracus,

I've now read the ENTIRE text of the indictment.. candidly, it only implicates Libby even MORESO than I previously believed.

The clear effort of Libby, is the same as yours, to attempt to try to discredit Wilson because his wife was involved, as if that somehow makes the information LESS True??

Libby and for that matter clearly "person A" (aka Dick Cheney) exposed Wilson's name (that being Valerie) to the Press. Bill's statement that it was widely known is fully refuted by the text of the indictment, and by the chronology of events. Wilson's book came out LONG after this became public. That you would claim that this is simply a matter of he said/she said, is troubling, because the evidence is pretty clear that there are several witnesses, including Dick Cheney himself, who have said Libby was both told and told time and again about this. Perhaps you "misremember" one conversation, you don't misremember 17 (or 5 or 6 in this case). You don't do so when you've chastised the CIA for "critical comments" and you SURE AS HELL don't do so when the VP, your BOSS, has discussed the situation with you time and again. Frankly Eracus, your position seems like you are wilfully believing other than the facts, or are you saying Dick Cheney really didn't talk to Libby, they didn't go on a plane ride to plan strategy, they didn't discuss where the information came from? Sure.. sure they didn't, and yet, months (not two years) later, when Libby originally testified, he mistates the reality.. hmmmm, gosh, I can remember when I stole a pound of chocolate when I was 6 or 7.. perhaps stealing and lying gets easier when you get more practiced.

Of this there is no doubt, as you pointed out, the CIA had an issue with Libby, Rove and Cheney. Why I wonder? Well perhaps because their advice, intelligence and direction was profoundly misrepresented, lied about and ignored. Perhaps also because they are a beaurocatic feifdom, but that doesn't refute the fact that they TOLD this Administration that Houssien was no closer than 15 years to an atomoc weapon, yet Bush, Cheney AND Powell said it was "only a matter of months." Perhaps it was because this President has, time and again, used the CIA as a scapegoat for his own deceptions and failings, maybe, just maybe, even though the VAST majority of the CIA aligned itself as republican, just like the FBI, they grew tired of the obvious lies, and sent someone they suspected would tell the truth.. what a concept.

The willingness of the extremists to exagerate should never be misunderestimated I guess.

As for the provability of the case, there is a saying about Federal Court, you go to it to be found guilty... not to be tried.. They don't do innocence. The point is that the deck is stacked.. which is probably unfair, but whether Libby will be found guilty or plea down is really the only question, not whether he'll escape unscathed. Maybe he will.. maybe not.

PB

Berger -- If they were only "copies" why did he destroy them so deliberately with a pair of scissors? And further, if they were only "copies," why were they in the National Archives in the first place? And then under such strict security not even the former National Security Advisor to the President of the United States could remove them, not even by copy, nor by notes without review and recorded documentation? That's why he stuffed 'em down his pants, PB.

The reason he did it was because they were ORIGINAL documents. That is, they had personal annotations in the margins, as did most of the other documents provided to the committee, and for which destruction Berger entered a plea of guilty, was convicted of several felonies, stripped of his security clearances, placed on probation, and fined $50,000, all to avoid prosecution presumably for higher crimes, namely espionage and treason.

As for the rest of your post, PB, honestly, I can't make heads or tails of it. My eyes glaze over. You're all over the place and I am a fool for even responding, but I have a sense of pity and therefore am no beast.

You say verbosely,

"Of this there is no doubt, as you pointed out, the CIA had an issue with Libby, Rove and Cheney. Why I wonder? Well perhaps because their advice, intelligence and direction was profoundly misrepresented, lied about and ignored. Perhaps also because they are a beaurocatic feifdom, but that doesn't refute the fact that they TOLD this Administration that Houssien was no closer than 15 years to an atomoc weapon, yet Bush, Cheney AND Powell said it was "only a matter of months."

To the contrary and on the record, the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, a Clinton appointee, described Hussein's POSSESSION of nuclear weapons programs as a "slam dunk." You are just making stuff up again, PB. You have not done your homework. You're just faking it.

Further, you say,

"Perhaps it was because this President has, time and again, used the CIA as a scapegoat for his own deceptions and failings, maybe, just maybe, even though the VAST majority of the CIA aligned itself as republican, just like the FBI, they grew tired of the obvious lies, and sent someone they suspected would tell the truth..."

Herewith you reveal your fundamental misunderstanding not only of current events, but of the political position of the FBI and CIA, Louis Freeh and Porter Goss notwithstanding, that is in OPPOSITION to the White House, which is the genesis of this entire "he said, she said" Valerie Plame affair and the origin of Fitzgerald's indictment of I. Lewis Libby. The CIA did not send a reputable, established emissary. They do not even acknowledge that they sent Joe Wilson. A "senior CIA official" says Valerie Plame sent Joe Wilson. George Tenet has himself denied any knowledge of Joe Wilson and a mission to Niger. This is why we have indictments for obstruction, false statement, and perjury and NOT that anybody "outed" a covert CIA agent. The official position of the CIA is there was none. Otherwise, Fitzgerald would have his smoking gun in the documentation that proved that there was.

The complete failure of Fitzgerald to suggest anything other than Libby might be a fink is why it is reported that he now wants to call the Vice President of the United States as a witness, knowing full well any writ will produce the sword of Executive Privilege, upon which he will impale himself, explain he "did all he could" and head for the nearest exit to great Liberal applause. The US Supreme Court has already ruled on Executive Privilege, there will be no deposition, and I. Lewis Libby will either have his day in court or cop to a plea, pay a fine, and join Sandy Berger in the salons of Georgetown.

How do we know? Because at trial, all the world will see who paid for Joe Wilson's trip to Niger. Chances are it wasn't the CIA.

Eracus, you need to go do your research. There is no question Berger did not destroy specific documents, he destroyed copies..

Also, Tenet was a Clinton appointee and a Bush darling. The person who provided Wilson's name to Cheney was Tenet. Beyond that Tenet was NOT in agreemeent with his own staff.. Read the record, you don't know your facts. In January of 2003, the CIA advised Bush that Houssien did not have any quick road (no closer than 15 years) to a nuclear weapon.

Whether or not Bush was mislead by the CIA (nice scapegoat btw, I guess Bush is never responsible). It is clear from the indictment that Libby and Cheney attempted to intimidate the CIA, so if the CIA were so supportive, were in fact misleading the administration, why did they need to attempt to pressure them? Why did they pressure them to have the unsupportive comments stopped? You can't have it both ways, the CIA was insubordinate, but fully supportive?

But here we are again, attacking the messanger (Wilson) who's fundamental assertion (that Niger and Iraq didn't do any business on Uranium) was absolutely true. Rather than worry about that, and the attempt to impede free flow of information, we attack him and whether his trip was funded by the CIA, the BSA or the IRA.

Whether THIS FBI is opposed to the administration, what I said was that NORMALLY they are supportive of Republican administrations, which is undeniable. I've had friends in FBI, and more importantly or accurate as a source, a friend who is in Presidential security, and he hated Clinton, loves Bush, and has said repeatedly that the FBI, at the functional level, hated Clinton and was principly Republican.

What happened then to turn the CIA away from Bush (and the FBI), what happened was that they saw how collosally incompetent, boorish, and deceitful this administration is in dealing with Terrorism, Bin Laden, and darned near everything else. They see him as nothing like a conservative, because he's not.

Ok, insult me some more now.

PB

There is no need, PB. You have so thoroughly embarrassed yourself unassisted that insult would be piling on. Have a nice day.

right...perhaps I should engage in insulting people like you do.. hmmm.. or maybe I'll pass on that..

Having re-read the story, it appears that two things were true:

1. Berger took copies, and perhaps an original, of a terror memo that there were multiple copies of and in no way impeded any investigation or comprimised security.

2. The fact that he had done so was known for months, but was leaked the same week as the full 9/11 report was released as a way to blunt criticism of the President..

Eracus, as you were the one who so overstated this issue, perhaps now you'd like to apologize for both lying to and insulting the readers here.

Or maybe not, as insulting people and mistating the facts seems to be your specialty... not admitting error.

PB

Revealed ignorance is not insult, PB, but the first step in the process by which people learn, as indicated by your progress from "Berger was doing research" to "Berger discarded copies" to Berger "took photo-copies, not actual documents" to your most recent post above, that Berger took "perhaps an original" actual document.

Meanwhile, the reality is a matter of public record that Berger, by his own admission before a Federal judge, did in fact steal 5 original documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroyed 3 of them with a pair of scissors. He returned the other two. The documents in question, also a matter of public record, detailed the Clinton Administation's failure to guard against terrorist plots during the 2000 millennial celebrations and were among the most sensitive materials anywhere in the National Archives, such that the mere examination of them required the highest level of security clearance issued by the U.S. Government. Berger admitted he stuffed 5 of them down his pants, took them to his office, and cut 3 of them up with a pair of scissors. These facts are nowhere in dispute. They are a matter of public record.

To believe otherwise is pure self-delusion, the exposure of which is the only purpose of this exchange in that you regularly insult and slander those who disagree with you while you yourself have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. You just make stuff up in pursuit of your own delusions, PB, as you have done in the Berger case, which is a shame, because you obviously have the energy, the ability, and the interest to attempt intelligent debate of the issues, but instead offer nothing but invective vitriol and polemics wholly unsupported by anything else but your own self-deception.

To continue to prattle on and on about liars and fascists and extremists not only takes no talent, it diminishes the opportunity for the constructive debate you presumably wish to engender. There can be no debate when your position so often repeated on this blog is that anyone who disagrees with you is a lying fascist extremist, which of course is the manner in which every lying, fascist, extremist enters debate. That you consistently fail to recognize your own manner and method only more emphasizes the extent of your own self-delusion, and no one can correct that but you.

So again, have a nice day.

Eracus,

One other thing, quote the public record regarding Wilson that you claim says he lied. Please.

PB
-------------------
REPORT ON THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON IRAQ

CONCLUSIONS

"The former ambassador, either by design or through ignorance, gave the American people and, for that matter, the world, a version of events that was inaccurate, unsubstantiated and misleading."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5403731
----------------------
IRAG PRE-WAR INTELLIGENCE REPORT (ADDENDUM)

"At the time the former ambassador traveled to Niger, the Intelligence Community did not have in its possession any actual documents on the alleged Niger-Iraq uranium deal, only second hand reporting of the deal. The former ambassador’s comments to reporters that the Niger-Iraq uranium documents “may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong,’” could not have been based on the former ambassador’s actual experiences because the Intelligence Community did not have the documents at the time of the ambassador’s trip. In addition, nothing in the report from the former ambassador’s trip said anything about documents having been forged or the names or dates in the reports having been incorrect. The former ambassador told Committee staff that he, in fact, did not have access to any of the names and dates in the CIA’s reports and said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct. Of note, the names and dates in the documents that the IAEA found to be incorrect were not names or dates included in the CIA reports."

http://roberts.senate.gov/07-09a-2004.htm
--------------
TERRY MORAN (ABC): "Many Americans are opposed to the war. Critics of your administration have looked to your investigation and hoped they might see this indictment as a vindication of their argument that the administration took the country to war on false premises. Does this indictment do that?"

FITZGERALD: This indictment is not about the war. This indictment is not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe furthering the war effort, people who oppose it, people who are -- have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel. The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate and this is focused on a narrow transaction, and I think anyone who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this process for any answers or resolution..."
--OCT 28, 2005 Press conference

BTW Eracus...

Calling people names and ignoring the main points just to twist the discussion to your topic is not being kind, it does not prove you are "not a beast."

It proves that someone (you in this case) can be juvenille, uncivil, and like to engage in ego-indulging rants. Now I don't claim the high ground in that, but please, I suggest you might be living in a glass house. Of course, hypocrisy is nothing new to the ultra-right.

Regardless, my desire would be to actually discuss facts.. The fact that Berger in fact took actual documents is a valid point, and something that was not reportedly clearly at all.. The fact that it in no way comprimed the 9/11 Commission's ability to investigate (as stated by the 9/11 Commission) is also a fact.

The fact that you described it as "impeding the most important investigation of our time" (paraphrase), is also a fact, a fact that you misunderstood the impact and engaged in hyperbole. I'll talk about the facts, but will not waste time on pompous bloviating (except my own :)). I appreciate the attempt (on your part) to use facts.

PB

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, PB, but the only one engaging in misstatement of facts, hyperbole and juvenile, uncivil, delusional rants is you. We are now at the point where you have conceded that "Berger in fact took actual documents" which was, in fact, widely reported if perhaps just not in the sources you chose to follow. Further, your suggestion that Berger's criminal actions "in no way comprimed (sic) the 9/11 Commission's ability to investigate" has its origins not in the 9/11 Commission's Report, but in Berger's own personal statement after his sentencing hearing:

"I deeply regret the actions that I took at the National Archives two years ago, and I accept the judgment of the court," Berger said outside the courthouse after his sentencing. "I'm glad that the 9/11 Commission has made clear that it received all the documents that it sought, all the documents that it needed, and I'm pleased to finally have this matter resolved," he added.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/berger.sentenced/

Just because Sandy Berger says it is so does not make it so. He was also convicted of lying to Federal investigators, afterall, and it is self-evident by virtue of his admission and conviction that the 9/11 Commission did NOT in fact receive all the documents it sought because Berger destroyed 3 of the originals then under subpoena. I think any reasonable person would agree that destroying original documents to prevent the 9/11 Commission from examining them would in fact constitute impeding the most important investigation of our time.