Powered by TypePad

« One Cryptic Reference, One Less So | Main | The WaPo Discovers Partisan Posturing in Washington! »

July 22, 2004



If Berger destroyed any evidence, this would be it, I'd guess. I suppose we'll find out.

richard mcenroe

Reagan and Clinton have one other thing in common: Reagan brought the Soviet Union to its knees, Clinton brought at least three women—

Sean Hackbarth

The report does Clinton a favor by squashing the Right-wing idea that he had an opportunity to get bin Laden via Sudan. Although it did it in a back-handed way.


Nearly all of number of DemLib-led charges or criticisms leveled against Reagan were proven to false by everyone save the Left - What matters to the Failed Left is the [EMOTIONALIST]ALLEGATION BY AND FOR THE ALLEGATION, NOTSOMUCH THE FACTS TO SUPPORT IT, Even now in 2004, post-impeachment, the DemLibs often use "court of law" as sub for the impeachment-period US Congress, with the specific term or label "Congress" rarely, iff ever, used in LeftMedia interpretations, just as it doesn't matter to the Left that their hallowed anti-Reagan antithesis Bill Clinton disavows any responsibility for America's properity during his tenure, all but officially admitting that the Left and LeftMedias were de facto LYING that Bush 1 was responsible for the worst US economy and recession in history, when in fact the US economy under Bush 1 was expanding by leaps and bounds! IOW,IT WAS CLINTON WHO WAS PER SE AND KNOWINGLY LYING WHEN HE ANOUNCED BEFORE THE MEDIAS HOW THE REPUBLICANS COULDN'T HANDLE THE ECONOMY OR THAT GOP POLICIES WERE BAD FOR THE ECONOMY, ETC. I HAVE ALWAYS FOUND IT INTERESTING THAT IT WAS THE DEDICATED ANTI-AMERICAN AND COMMUNIST CLINTON WHOM FINALLY TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT BUSH 1, EVEN TO HINT OR POSITIVELY/PROACTIVELY IMPLY DEMOCRAT ELECTION FRAUD FOR BOTH 1992, OR 1996 AGAINST DOLE, NOT AND NOT YET THE ALLEGED PRO-AMERICA, PRO-MIDWEST, PRO-BLUE-COLLAR AND FAMILY VALUES LOVING DEMOCRATS PER SE! Its obviously more important for US DemLibs and Left to have PC SOLIDARITY/UNITY, THAN TO GET RID OR SEPARATE FROM THE AMERICA-KILLING COMMUNIST CLINTONS, even if it means protecting them from conspiracy for 9-11 and 000's of dead Americans, as well as from the "creeping" anti-American Communism, SOcialism, and anti-AMerican OWG the Clintons themselves desire and are working for! POWER, SCORING POINTS, AND MISINFORMATION OR DISINFORMATION MATTERS MORE THAN TELLING AMERICANS ANY TRUTH(S) ABOUT THE VERY REAL HIDDEN OR INVISIBLE CONTEMPORARY THREAT TO AMERICA'S EXISTENCE, PRINCIPLES, AND QUALITY-OF-LIFE! ITS MORE IMPORTANT FOR BUSH AND AMERICA TO LOSE EITHER THE WOT OR AMERICA'S SOVREIGNTY, FOR AMERICA'S SUFFER MILPOL OR GEOPOLITICAL DEFEAT OR SETBACK, THAN FOR THE LEFT TO SHARE POWER OR ADMIT LEFTISM-SOCIALISM IS AN ACROSS-THE-BOARD GROTESQUE FAILURE AS A PRAGMATIC MODEL FOR SOCIETAL AND NATIONAL, EVEN GLOBAL, WEALTH, PROSPERITY, PEACE, AND GOVERNANCE, NOT EVEN TO REFORM FOR ITS OWN BENEFIT OR ADVANTAGE!



never mind re: Berger.


Berger's explanation is highly misleading at best... The evidence of bin Laden's involvement in the WTC bombing alone was rather strong by then. "A search of his former residences leads investigators to believe he is financially linked to bin Laden. Also, he had stayed at a bin Laden-financed guest house while in Pakistan." Combine that with this - "He was named by federal prosecutors in New York [in '95] as a potential co-conspirator in the terror trial of radical Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 10 other Muslims accusing of plotting a 'war of urban terrorism' in the USA," and Berger's claim just doesn't pass the straight face test.

What the commission fails to mention is that Clinton first told them (one of the commissioners is on record saying this) that he was "misquoted"... then he was told that he was caught on tape. Berger and Clinton (Berger was WITH Clinton when he testified) clearly made some slippery statements to the commission.

Patrick R. Sullivan

So...it really does depend on what the definition of "is", is?


Right-wing idea that he had an opportunity to get bin Laden via Sudan.

I am sand-bagging you with some new links in an update - apparently, the not-so-right-wing Washington Post and even-less-so Vanity Fair were big on this story.

My GUESS is that their final answer would be, the Sudan incident happend, but it was not credible - even if our side had agreed to the "back-channel" proposal, we would not have gotten Osama.

Now, are they all lying and covering for each other? Who knows?

And how do we know the offer *was* credible - just because the WaPo found lots of people who took it seriously, and just because they quote Sandy Berger as offering legalistic, rather than practical objections, doesn't mean that the practical objections were not paramount.

I'll stop now; I'm not even convincing myself.


Tom, Gerald Posner seems to have the best explanation.




Shelby speaks... who will listen?

The comments to this entry are closed.