Prosecute the torture.

May 27, 2007

The Berger Smear...Again

In an editorial today, the Trib editorial board writes:
Allegations continue that during his preparation for testimony before the 9/11 commission, Berger destroyed documents that would have greatly embarrassed Mr. Clinton over his devil-may-care approach to terrorism.
As Daniel Patrick Moynahan is quoted as saying:
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
And The Trib is trying to have it's own fact here. Why? Well, let's take a look at the facts (the actual facts, not the allegations of facts from the right-wing press). According to the New York Times:
In 2003, Mr. Berger spent several days at the National Archives reviewing classified material as the Clinton administration’s designated liaison to the Sept. 11 commission. He later admitted that he took and destroyed several versions of a classified report prepared in 2000 on the so-called millennium terrorist plots, although the commission had copies of the same reports.
And the dependably right-wing OpinionJournal:
So we called Justice Department Public Integrity chief prosecutor Noel Hillman, who assured us that Mr. Berger did not deny any documents to history. "There is no evidence that he intended to destroy originals," said Mr. Hillman. "There is no evidence that he did destroy originals. We have objectively and affirmatively confirmed that the contents of all the five documents at issue exist today and were made available to the 9/11 Commission."
So whatever "embarrassing" information found in the reports is still in the reports, right? And those reports are still in the National Archives, right? And yet, The Trib is still at it, implying a cover-up when the evidence doesn't support it.

Not surprising - it IS the right wing press, you know.

9 comments:

Heir to the Throne said...

According to the New York Times:
I trust the New York Times after their slanted Duke lacrosse rape hoax coverage that they still refuse to admit was wrong.

BTW, Justice Department and National Archives still have no idea what Sandy Berg(l)er stole destroyed.
Of course he is on your side so any excuse will do.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Berger also stated that he would take a liar detector test ...

This country is still waiting.

Anonymous said...

Herr Throne;

The Duke Lacrosse rape case is irrelevant here - but thanks for trying to deflect the story anyway.

Also, the Justice Department hasn't reported any missing documents, so how can anything have been stolen?

Don't you think they know exactly what documents he looked at? The National Archives aren't exactly the public library, you know.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous #1 is justifying Berger's actions. No missing documents? If that's the case, then what was the shredder Berger used for?

Anonymous #1: you are a kook.

Heir to the Throne said...

The Duke Lacrosse rape case is irrelevant here - but thanks for trying to deflect the story anyway.
It is relevant if quoting the New York Times as a "accurate" source
The NY times coverage of Duke Lacrosse rape case is a textbook example of bias and political correctness. Facts and evidence be damned, they had a class/race narrative to establish.

Maria said...

And pray tell, HTTT, what is the bias of Justice Department Public Integrity chief prosecutor Noel Hillman? Is he lying too?

Anonymous said...

And pray tell, HTTT, what is the bias of Justice Department Public Integrity chief prosecutor Noel Hillman? Is he lying too? Of course he is, notice how he parsed his statment. If you were up to become a judge and needed confirmation from the Senate, what would you say? Even if he is a Republican, you can see his self interests lie with being a judge more than smearing Sandy Burgerler. Not that he can put the creep in prison (that might be worth a judgeship), thats not his job. Anonymous #2

Smitty said...

your continued support of a thief and a liar would suggest your moral compass is a little off

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Maria: Did you follow Heir's link? It IS sufficient in it's rabid Wingnuttiness, but it doesn't support his position.

I have noticed that for people of a Rightist persuasion, there seems to be a fairly significant chasm separating premise from conclusion, fact from opinion, and fiction from reportage. See, for an excellent example, the justification for the invasion of Iraq. For another, examine their justification for staying there. For a third, research the superstitions of their leading candidate for president.