What Has Sandy Berger All Wired Up?

The Justice Department if 18 House Republicans have their way. Berger agreed to a polygraph in his plea deal but it was never administered. House Republicans would like to clean up that little item. No doubt his lawyer will get busy. But as he already signed off on it, he might not be able to avoid the call.

Mr. Davis said that during sentencing, Mr. Berger agreed to a polygraph examination as part of a plea deal, but Justice never administered the test, according to two Justice officials closely connected to the case -- John Dion, chief of the counterespionage section, and Bruce Swartz, deputy assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division.

He said Mr. Berger assured the commission that it received all the documents it sought but that some of the papers Mr. Berger examined were originals for which there were no copies or inventory. He said there is no way to know whether Mr. Berger returned all of those documents.

Lanny Breuer, Mr. Berger's attorney, has said the matter was thoroughly investigated by the Justice Department for more than two years and effectively closed for more than a year. He said the report's conclusions were based on "pure conjecture."

Eighteen House Republicans have urged the Justice Department to proceed with a polygraph test for Samuel R. Berger, the former national security adviser who agreed to take the test as part of a plea of guilty of stealing documents from the National Archives.

Comments

[Purple Avenger]

I think Sandy just scarfed up the last copy of this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Beat-box-insiders-outwitting-detector/dp/B000720G1Y

[Bill Adkins]

Tell ya what - you get George W. Bush to show up at the same time and place and we can have them do dueling polygraphs. I'm betting Sandy will pass long before George will. http://www.peasantville.com/the_peasantville_blog/2007/01/george_bush_mak.html

[Patrick]

Bill,
Quick quiz. Which one of these is a baldfaced lie? A) "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms Lewinsky." or B) "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Better still. What are the five questions you would like to specifically ask the President that you think he would fail?

[Bill Adkins]

Pretty simple, based on your post, Patrick -
1) Were you Mr. Bush operating upon intelligence circa 1998 when you ordered the invasion of Iraq?
2) If not, did you ignore solid and credible intelligence that there were no WMD and order the invasion of Iraq anyway?
3) Did President Clinton's blow job operate as a factor in your decision?
4) What did you know and when did you know it as to Karl Rove's involvement in outing a CIA agent?
5) Are you as thoroughly a dumbfuck as you appear to be?

[Patrick]

I can predict his honest and truthful answers, which would pass the test.
1. A wealth of intelligence from many sources, including that from agencies spanning the globe were used. So the answer to your question cannot be yes/no. In part, yes. Solely, no.
2. As there have subsequently been WMD and WMD manufacturing capabilities discovered, your question is laughable on it's face.
3. The only Presidential action that factored into the decision was the act of war committed by Iraq in trying to assassinate President GHW Bush.
4. As the agent in question was not covert, there was no crime (and no indictment has yet to be issued for the unveiling of the non-secret identity of Plame/Wilson). Please depose/polygraph Richard Armitage for the answer.
5. You confuse inarticulate with dumbfuck. President Bush is intelligent, however inarticulate. You are apparently articulate, yet a dumbfuck.

[Carl]

Maybe you 28%ers didn't get the memo, but as of 11/4/06 you have been rendered irrelevant. Therefore, you don't get to demand anything. Stay the course, shitheads.

[Legalize]

I find the language in Patrick's dubious revisionist history lesson to be foulmouthed and uncivil. As such, I am outraged.

[Bill Adkins]

Ahh, Patrick - that's YOU attempting to read Bush's mind - and that's impossible. And, based upon your answers, particularly your answer to number 2 which is an out and out lie, not only Bush would fail but so would you. Number 4 is being answered right now at Libby's trial, by the way, and looks like he's not going to be a sacrifical lamb. As for dumbfuck - you appear to be Republican and a Bush sick-o-phant, ergo the point is proven - you're one of the dumbfucks that makes up the 28%.

[Steel]

And you, Mr. Adkins, are one of the reasons radical Islam will prevail.

[Bill Adkins]

No, Mr. Steel, you are - because you and Bush are fighting a enemy in Iraq that has/had nothing to do with 9/11 and you presented America with a disastrous blunder and a very expensive 1/2 trillion dollar to date clusterfubar. Instead of fighting Al Qaeda and pursuing bin Laden, you and Bush pushed us into that legacy that will always be Bush's, his Blunder in Iraq. If Bush had been in charge in '41, we'd have invaded Paraguay in response to Pearl Harbor and we'd be speaking Japanese and worshiping the Emperor today.

[larry]

odd, this 'bush derangement syndrome' infecting the profoundly stupid half of america these days. the topic is, "why isn't the DOJ making felon scumbag sandy berger take the polygraoh test he committed to?", and wouldn't ya know it, here are the liberal scum ranting on about dumb ol' bush. i know, i know: that hardly *ever* happens, right?

for god sakes, don't ask them about the weather! it'll just rile them up!

[Bill Adkins]

the profoundly stupid portion of America is currently at 28%.

[Patrick]

Bill has taken the opening remarks at Libby's trial and declared it over, so we can be happy that Bill will not be appointed to any judgeships for the next couple of years. As to the rest, I'll stand by my remarks.

I know I'll regret asking, but where do you keep coming up with this frothing 28%?

[Bill Adkins]

I'll not be appointed, pat - I'll run and be elected. As for the 28% it's the latest CBS poll. www.pollingreport.com. Check them all out.

[Patrick]

Bill,
It might surprise you that I did an online Zogby poll the other day and put myself in the mildly disapprove column, which would exclude me from your 28%. Although I do tend to vote solidly conservative (as opposed to solidly Republican), and did vote for Republicans last fall, I don't believe in this Amnesty crap that is coming and don't believe he's being aggressive enough about Iraq (win and get the fuck out instead of fighting it half-assedly). So not everybody that says they disagree with the President is necessarily against Bush or the GWOT. I know quite a few solid Republicans, who wouldn't vote any other way, but who are unhappy with his flaccid conservatism.

The surge that Petraeus has asked for is the only way to win, and winning is the only way to end it. Agree or disagree? Spare me the "we shouldn't have gone in the first place" and obligatory chickenhawk adhom - do you want to win, or just leave?

[Patrick]

Also, Bill, can you point me to the internals on the pollingpoint polls? I can't find them, and I'd like to see the demographics on those.

[Bill Adkins]

Let's quit sniping, fun though it might be, and talk seriously. No, we should never have gone to Iraq - there were too many real targets. That said, we have to deal with Iraq now. I think partition is the only option with any chance of success. This 'surge' is just more 'stay the course' and stay the course is stuck on stupid. Split it up, give the Kurds there portion (they've got things under control, by the way - no IEDs there), put our puppets in charge of the oil and keep them supplied. How about it? BTW, wasn't Petraeus that general on 'Planet of the Apes?'

[larry]

well i'll be damned. finally a lefty devises an iraq plan that *doesn't* involve "running away like a little bitch". adkins' plan sounds ok by me. all i'd add is "make sure we mine the crap out of the syrian and iranian borders".

you know, like it should have been done 3 years ago.

[Phoenix]

Yay, Bill.

I won't play the 'should' game, but agree on the IEDs for the borders.

Uh oh... I have to eat my words: I think we should have gone into Iraq as we need a base there. By 'base' I mean our 'whatever' presence in a friendly, democratic country in the middle of that hell hole of the ME. It's our best weapon, and for all the deriding of the neo-cons, they had the futuristic sight to know this war on terror was going to be long...real long. Not to have a 'base' where we have some control would be foolish.

I also think the 'stay the course' business is passe. There is much more to this surge - like drawing out the Iranians and possibly forcing Syria's hand. Does anyone really think at this point that a repeat of efforts is what our military hotshots recommend, or what those who are behind the scenes of strategy really believe? If they divide the country, fine, but I don't think they'll do that. They'll use the Kurds to help, but in the long run, a democratic Iraq will play havoc on the minds of those in surrounding countries who have some notion of the world outside of Islam's strict cultural laws. If those countries implode from within, we get to sit back and watch and maybe build a few McDonald's and Starbucks in the desert. And a Victoria's Secret.