If you haven't read Professor Bob Altemeyer's book "The Authoritarians" you really should. It goes a very long what is going on politically in the US (and other countries) today. The full text is online at http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

In particular, the Washington Post reports that Berger purloined all draft revisions of a key critique of the government's response to the millennium terrorism threat, a document that detailed Administration knowledge – and inaction – regarding al Qaeda presence in the U.S. in 1999 and 2000. Stolen were crucial notes in the margins of these drafts which reveal the thinking and agendas of the Clinton Administration relating to the mounting terrorist threat.

Still think that those "copies" meant nothing?

If they meant nothing, why did Bill sign off to authorize him to go in RIGHT BEFORE THE 9-11 COMMISSION WAS GATHERING DATA and if they meant nothing why would Berger risk his whole career to recoup them?

Any ideas Rick?

Tell Hannity that Berger stole COPIES of the document originals – that OTHERS ALREADY HAD.

You'll have to tell him I think he's an idiot too – since apparently you're the only one that likes the guy on this thread.

And I actually agree with you on some things .. like on the fact that Dubya and Billy BOTH blew it. Billy just tried harder to get him before 911 than Dubya did.

I dont' know how anyone could possibly be a disappoint after George Bush!

Now Sean Hannitty asked me to ask you, what did Sandy Berger steal (remember, Bill Clinton signed off on him going to the archives) from the national archives before the 9-11 commission was to meet?

Stuffing documents in your socks and briefcase on MULTIPLE VISITS, hiding them under a trailer and then when the coast was clear, retrieving them and then (here's the money shot) DESTROYING them.

Now since I watch CNN, MSNBC (it is for the humor) and FOX, they also would like to hear your spin on this question.

Bush sucks and he blew it with OBL, but your boy Billy can cry all he wants to Chris Wallace, he blew it too.

Fair and balanced hammering.

Your explanation was given by several people on this thread above you.

But I'll paraphrase for ya ..

Since Republicans thrive on F-E-A-R and use it to get elected, they would jump all over another terrorist attack saying "SEE! We're under constant the threat of terror .. which is why we need to keep getting them THERE before they come HERE!"

Of course this would be yet another major foreign terrorist attack under Republican watch that would disprove the theory of "you can get them there before they come here", but never mind.

People are generally too stupid to grasp THAT flaw when their all emotional following an attack, an attack that even Republicans said is going to come soon.

Oh, and by the way, Sudan offered to send Osama to SAUDI ARABIA, and SAUDI ARABIA refused him. Sudan never offered bin Laden to Clinton or the United States.

In fact, the 9-11 Commission "Staff Statement No. 5," rejected the Sudanese claim. On page 109 of its report, the 911 Commission states: "Sudan's minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Ladin over to the United States. The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so."

See, just cuz Sean Hannity says it on FOX news, doesn't MAKE it so.

And, by the way, how's that search for Osama coming AFTER he put an extra 3,000 life bounty on his head? Was he ever found "dead OR alive"? And do you think that Dubya's letting him escape from Tora Bora or disbanding the terrorism unit in charge of finding him might have something to do with that?

RichG, Los: you must be from the same planet that Michael Moore is from.

After reading these posts, I'm expecting an "explanation" from her since it's been such an unpopular thing for her to have said.

PS: What is a neocon that people refer to so much in these posts? I really don't know?

Chip wrote:Who actually tries to 'calculate' which party will gain an advantage in the wake of such an unspeakable event? Then assert that "I'm your girl" afterward.

I think he makes a great point here.
Unfortuneatly, this seems to be the standard bill of fare that we get from all the candidates, from both parties.

If we keep having candidates of this quality running for office, we will end up like France, a socialist nightmare that keeps finding new ways to become worse.

Mrs. Clinton always seems to be the first to criticize others about making reckless assumptions. But she has put it out there—now jeopardizing the races of our other Democratic candidates running in tight ‘08 Congressional races.

But now that it is out there can’t Democrats and those critical independent voters also speculate by asking, “What if? What if? Certain things happen after Mrs. Clinton has won the nomination but before the general election, particularly with respect to Bill Clinton and any suspected recent infidelities with younger women that might emerge? Wouldn’t that automatically give the Republicans a morale advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world."

Unfair question? Irresponsible? Bad Taste? You bet it is. But Dan Rather explored that very question on Chris Matthew’s show last weekend. You can be sure that while Mrs. Clinton is now more than willing speculate on the impact another terrorist attack might have on the entire election—she will no doubt get a pass by an equally irresponsible press that will never ask a “what if question” based on what impact any new suspected unfaithfulness by her husband might have on her as a Presidential candidate or on the general election.

Also, how many times does this woman tell us that she doesn't want to engage in hypotheticals? Then, she starts theorizing on the hypothetical impact of an attack. This one is even more blatant than her flip-flop on who to hypothetically nuke.

The Republicans certainly are the standard-bearers when it comes to the politics of fear, but Hillary's whole campaign is pretty much based on scaring people too. That's really the lynchpin of the pitch when she tries to convince everyone that Obama is too inexperienced. After all, if he had enough experience, he'd really be a much better candidate than HRC, wouldn't he?

Well, guess what? He actually does have enough experience: Obama has held elected office longer, has more legislative accomplishments and can work with Republicans instead of focusing exclusively on fighting them.

To top it all off, Obama has much better judgment and leadership skills than Hillary and without all the baggage. The sooner people start realizing that, the better off we'll all be.

Zbigniew Brzezinski is absolutely right in saying "Being a former first lady doesn't prepare you to be president," and "There is a need for a fundamental rethinking of how we conduct world affairs and Obama seems to me to have both the guts and the intelligence to address that issue and to change the nature of America's relationship with the world."

Also, how many times does this woman tell us that she doesn't want to engage in hypotheticals? Then, she starts theorizing on the hypothetical impact of an attack.

The Republicans certainly are the standard-bearers when it comes to the politics of fear, but Hillary's whole campaign is pretty much based on scaring people too. That's really the lynchpin of the pitch when she tries to convince everyone that Obama is too inexperienced. After all, if he had enough experience, he'd really be a much better candidate than HRC, wouldn't he?

Well, guess what? He actually does have enough experience: Obama has held elected office longer, has more legislative accomplishments and can work with Republicans instead of focusing exclusively on fighting them.

To top it all off, Obama has much better judgment and leadership skills than Hillary. The sooner people start realizing that, the better off we'll all be.

Zbigniew Brzezinski is absolutely right in saying "Being a former first lady doesn't prepare you to be president," and "There is a need for a fundamental rethinking of how we conduct world affairs and Obama seems to me to have both the guts and the intelligence to address that issue and to change the nature of America's relationship with the world."

And I thought Hillary said presidential candidates should not use hypotheticals...so why is she using hypotheticals?

Yet another flip flop from Hillary....funny how CNN failed to point out her contradictions on hypotheticals.

She feels that, and I have for years. I'm half afraid we'll attack Iran or something as the election nears to scare people into voting Repulican again.

And why are people acting like "the terrorists" will hear about this and plan their entire future upon it? I doubt bin Laden gets cable TV in the mountain caves.

they will have our soldiers sitting idle, getting paid for doing nothing. well, that sounds really smart.

The same thing was used previously? Say it isn't so. My short term memory must be fading faster than I thought, gee, thanks for reminding me. In that case, I guess that justifies Hillary using it.

Are you not tired of politics as usual?

Only one of you noticed that Chris Dodd said the same thing I did, of course he's not a "top-tier" candidate so perhaps his views are irrelevant? (if it ain't broke, don't fix it...?) What is that supposed to mean, they're all currently or have been at one time legislators....

Calling me dramatic! Asking whose campaign I'm working on. Did my comment tip that hat, or are you just suspicious because if I'm against Hillary I must be another candidate's plant or an evil neo-con.

How would Bush using the same line be "even more distasteful?" Is it because he represents the 'other guys'?

I think they're equally lame.

Do you support her actions? Why? Just because the other guy did it isn't a valid answer.

Best regards,

Chip

p.s. don't you think that whether or not homeland security tells us about code levels and warns us of plots, most americans will still sit ontheir fat butts, watch tv and go shopping ?

That Democratic Rep. Clyburn (sp?) said last week that winning in Iraq would not be a good thing for Democrats. Oh that's really a good one too.

I bet the repubs really are worried now, because Hillary has just lost a large percentage of her "in the bag" supporters, because of this outrageous comment. And the repubs were hoping SHE would be the nominee, because she would be easiest to beat (compared to Edwards and Obama).

She's crossed the line on this one, and am glad she did. Putting her foot in her mouth about Iraq didn't seem to be enough, now's she got BOTH feet in there. She'll never get the Democratic nod with "incite-ful" comments like that. She should just withdraw, or at least leave her feet in her mouth.

It's looking brighter for Edwards and Obama every day !!!

"Since it's been the Republican administration (Bush) that has used our military to pursue OBL, Al Qaeda, and terrorists"

Ummm ... Would that be the same Bush administration that promised to get OBL "dead or alive" (insert more bad-azz, cowboy statements as you see fit here) .. and then called off American troops when he had OBL pinned down in Tora Bora?

Would that be the SAME Bush administration that then disbanded the terrorist tracking unit that was looking for him?

Would that be the very ummm ... same Bush administration that HAS YET TO FIND HIM?

And would this be the same Bush administration that is now responsible for Al Queda's presence in Iraq – a place where they formerly couldn't reside when Saddam was in power? Who is now nation building in Iraq with our military after criticizing Clinton for doing so with peacekeeping missions in Haiti, Somalia and the Balkans?

WAIT!

Would this ALSO be the same Bush administration that said "I don't think you can win it" in reference to the very War on Terror that they started, with OTHER (under-armored) kids lives, to secure those stockpiles of WMDS that they were in a rush to NOT find?

LOL ... better luck next time coming up with some Bush "positives" that I can't tear down quite so incredibly easily.

I've never been a huge Hillary fan but this comment has pretty much sealed the deal. If she's the Democratic candidate, I may just stay home. We don't need more of that kind of divisiveness in America.

He continually posts a comment, then cut and runs away at the slightest hint of confrontation.

1000 more bucks says he's a republican!

So go ahead, put another Republican in office. And when your next Republican leader continues to destroy all you hold sacred, you can go again to your safe fairy tale world and pretend all is well and good in America.

In my world, the terrorists do not create as much fear or dread as the Republicans.

Want to know who's, "sick and twisted", Lynn...read your disgusting psychotic post.

Van

The GOP is so hypocritical it hurts. Neocons have been using terrorism to scare up votes for years, and now they blast Hillary for pointing it out? Who are these people kidding.

I think they're just terrified they've finally met the Democrat who can (and will) beat them at their own game. The view ain't so good from the other side, huh?

My preferences

1. Obama (retains my first choice) Obviously sincere, experienced, tremendous leader. Very detailed policy statements clearly articulated in speeches and on web site. I KNOW where he stands and what he'll do. I have never been more excited to support a candidate.

2. Biden (up from third). Very detailed policies I KNOW where he stands and I trust him.

3. Clinton (down from second). Where's the experience? She has almost no clearly articulated plans. Just look at her web site. In her most recent speech available on her web site, she promises a comprehensive health plan next month. I'm sure she is studying Obama's and Biden's web sites for the excellent health care policies they have explained in detail there. I'm losing faith in her, she is a lightning rod for partisanship. The statement reported here doesn't bode well. I just don't see her earning the trust of the republican side to allow compromise, in part because I don't see her ever trusting the republican side. She also seems rather hypocritical in doing the saying the things that she criticizes Obama for saying – nukes, hypotheticals, etc.

4. Richardson (retaining 4th). Again, just not enough details to judge. Vague plans relative to Obama and Biden.