I believe the comment is not you, just wanted to let you know and double check .

Tim

Tim, I’d rather not call attention to the creep. E-mail the link if you want. – Admin

Around the ‘sphere by first name, as if I’m best friends with all of them. Well, two out of 10 ain’t bad. Jeff may be contemplating cellphone-cide, or rather, homicide for anyone carrying one. Easy there, Jeff. We need Beautiful…

All better now?

The article doesn’t mention the pants stuffing; it’s about whether Berger destroyed documents with notations in the margin. – Admin

Some people won’t let a bad conspiracy theory go. We’re referring to those who loudly assert that former NSC adviser Sandy Berger was trying to protect the Clinton Administration when he illegally removed copies of sensitive documents from the National Archives in late 2003.

On Wednesday, we quoted Justice Department prosecutor Noel Hillman that no original documents were destroyed, and that the contents of all five at issue still exist and were made available to the 9/11 Commission. But that point didn’t register with some readers, who continue to suggest a vast, well, apparently a vast left- and right-wing conspiracy. The Washington Times, the Rocky Mountain News and former Clintonite Dick Morris have also been peddling dark suspicions based on misinformation.

The confusion seems to stem from the mistaken idea that there were handwritten notes by various Clinton Administration officials in the margins of these documents, which Mr. Berger may have been able to destroy. But that’s simply an “urban myth,” prosecutor Hillman tells us, based on a leak last July that was “so inaccurate as to be laughable.” In fact, the five iterations of the anti-terror “after-action” report at issue in the case were printed out from a hard drive at the Archives and have no notations at all.

“Those documents, emphatically, without doubt–I reviewed them myself–don’t have notations on them,” Mr. Hillman tells us. Further, “there is no evidence after comprehensive investigation to suggest he took anything other than the five documents at issue and they didn’t have notes.” Mr. Berger’s sentencing is scheduled for July, and Mr. Hillman assures us Justice’s sentencing memo will lay out the facts and “make sure Mr. Berger explains what he did and why he did it.” Meanwhile, conservatives don’t do themselves any credit when they are as impervious to facts as the loonyhttp://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006534 left.

My “your” was directed towards the conservative media in general. It is pretty obvious that the hubbub about Berger is to give a sense of equality for the MANY scandals that have come out of the Bush Admin.

“I suggest that person is lying,” he said. “And if that person has the guts, let’s see who it is who made the comment that Sandy Berger stuffed something into his socks.”

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/20/berger.probe/

Not true? Unless you’ve seen a copy of Berger’s deposition or other statement, how do you figure the pants stuffing to be “rumor?” And why do you assume we have no moral outrage against Ken Lay just because Ken Lay isn’t mentioned in the post? When I criticize one, must I criticize every conceivable other, or I’m a hypocrite? Do you do that on your blog? If I clicked on your link, would I find long posts which list every single person who ever did the thing you’re criticizing someone for? Good grief.

As a matter of fact, a few commenters mentioned Ken Lay. You probably didn’t check to make sure what you’re saying was accurate before you posted your own comment.

Thats pretty stupid.