March 31, 2007

Why it's good to have Fox News, reason #4872

Because, as the Capitol is having hearings into why the president ditched political appointees (who'da thought?), a most obvious political crime continues to be ignored by the MSM. That is, the case of Sandy "Socks" Berger.

But before the usual moonbats get all postal, check it out:

  • [Rep. Tom] Davis (R, VA) also told FOX News that he is not convinced that Berger was not acting under direction from the Clinton Administration.
  • DOJ lawyers involved in the case failed to let the 9/11 Commission know the scope and seriousness of the security breach, despite direct orders from top Justice officials. (So, what's the deal with the Bush team? Why'd they allow this? Did THEY have ulterior motives?)
  • Contrary to the assurances the Justice Department made to Congress and to the 9/11 Commission, nobody but Berger can know whether he kept key documents and information about Clinton administration anti-terror efforts from the Commission. (HUH???)
  • That the Justice Department, in a break with precedent and procedure, relied on Bergerís statements despite a record that showed a history of lies. (What the hell ...??)

The report airs at 9pm EDT tonight.

Posted by Hube at March 31, 2007 08:49 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Nobody has any assurances he wasn't working for a foreign power. China had unprecidented access to the White House for years. Who's to say he's not working for them?

Posted by: Duffy at March 31, 2007 10:35 AM

The issue here is the politicization of the Justice Department, whether it be the Berger case or the recent firing of US Attorney's for political purposes. Both are a concern, but you partisan hounds want us to focus on only one. What good is this diversion then? I think an holistic approach is required, starting now, otherwise our faith in the Justice Department will deteriorate further under the Rove/Gonzalez regime.

Posted by: Perry Hood at March 31, 2007 10:17 PM

Yeah, sure, Perry. Like YOU are Mr. Bipartisan fairness. LOL!!! Did you even read the f***ing post's title? It's because the MSM has barely even touched the Berger case while focusing on the current AG/DOJ every single minute!

God, you're thick.

Posted by: Hube at April 1, 2007 09:00 AM

Hube, there you go again; it's a compulsion with you, isn't it?

I said both are a concern, didn't I?

I was responding to Duffy's speculation, that's all.

Now who is thick?

Posted by: Perry Hood at April 1, 2007 12:40 PM

Um, YOU once again, Perry since it is by now obvious you have absolutely no conception of either what you write, how it's written, or you're just plain playing games. I grow weary of pointing out your hypocrisy and contradictions, but I'll do it one more time:

You said: but you partisan hounds want us to focus on only one.

"Hounds" is plural, meaning that this addresses Duffy AND me if not conservatives in general. Second, again, the MSM must be "partisan hounds" since they have virtually ignored the Berger story at the expense of the AG/DOJ story and THIS was the main thrust of the post! Third, how partisan is it, really, that I pointed out in italics how culpable the Bush admin. is itself in the very Berger case?

I know you must really feel thoroughly thrashed now, Perry. Give it up, old man. LOL!

Posted by: Hube at April 1, 2007 01:02 PM