Alberto GONZALEZ Knew abt BERGER *and* Coordinated for 9-11 Commission

[UTUSN]

(This is dated two days ago, sorry if dupe, but it was in my local newspaper for today.)

So would it be beneath Counselor GONZALEZ to sponsor the leak, perhaps with "coordination" from his handlers (since he's not an original thinker), given that he gives ShrubCo whatever legal justification it needs, such as bypassing the Geneva Conventions?

*******QUOTE*******

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aL9KDSwIqHTM&refer=us

Berger Probe, Aide Says (Update1)

July 21 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush's legal advisers knew about the investigation of former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger's handling of classified documents before the probe became public this week, a White House spokesman said. ....

Bush today called the investigation ``a serious matter,'' while declining to comment to reporters about when he learned about it.

``I'm not going to comment on this matter,'' Bush said during an Oval Office meeting with the prime minister of Romania. ``It will be fully investigated by the Justice Department.''

McClellan said the White House counsel's office was informed about the probe because it coordinated the distribution of documents for the Sept. 11 commission. ....

********UNQUOTE*******

[UTUSN]

1. So ShrubCo Got to Pick Through and PICK What the Commish Got to See n/t

[KittyWampus]

2. Hmmm, Wasn't Aware Of This... How Sure Is Your Interpretation

that Junior Etc. got to pick and choose which documents the 9/11 Commission got to see?

Just curious.

[UTUSN]

3. How Sure Is MY Interpretation? Well, I Don't Have Proof

just a series of dots: Selection 2000, a phoney war, Shrub's campaign p.r. dude (McKINNON) gets off the hook and his employee (Hispanic woman) goes to jail for stolen debate prep tapes, PLAME leak, GONZALEZ takes the John YOO justification for the subversion of the Geneva Convention, Miguel MIRANDA taking the rap for the stolen congressional computer records--------I mean, the Shrubbites' scorched earth policy towards us-the-Enemy, with the Boy-emperor being beyond responsibility and reproach hardly needs more elaboration around here, does it? My interpretation is just my opinion for the moment, like most posts at an internet discussion board.

I mean, the article SAYS the WH Counsel's office coordinated the distribution of documents for the 9-11 Commission. Doesn't that mean "gatekeeper"? They got first (and last?) look at what the Commission was going to (could?) see?

[UTUSN]

4. On the Other Hand, "No Defense for Sandy BERGER"

from G_j's thread, "No Defense for Sandy BERGER": http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2048506

See, my opinion has changed already. This doesn't blunt the point about the Shrubbites' deviousness, however. I was just reacting to one of our prominent figures being whacked, but, despite all I see on DU, I had never heard anything negative about BERGER here or anywhere. But now I'm definitely swayed against him. In this case, it just might have been somebody from OUR side who sprang the leak, and no, I don't have any proof.

*******QUOTE*******

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion//index.php?ntid=7211&ntpid=3

Editorial: No defense for Sandy Berger

An editorial
July 23, 2004

.... Berger has for many years been an atrocious player in American politics. He tried to get former Clinton to launch a war with Iraq in the late 1990s, using "evidence" every bit as flimsy as that employed by the Bush administration in 2003. He has been a Democratic apologist for some of the Bush administration's worst abuses. And, as a senior adviser to John Kerry's presidential campaign, he pressured the presumptive Democratic nominee to echo the Bush administration line on maintaining the occupation of Iraq. ....

Berger claims his removal of the documents, which may have contained material harmful to his own reputation, was an "honest mistake." ....

While it may be true that Republicans are ginning up the Berger controversy at this point in order to cover for the misdeeds of members of their own party, Democrats should not waste an ounce of energy defending the former Clinton aide.

In fact, Democrats should be celebrating the fact that he has been forced to resign as an adviser to Kerry. The further Berger is from the Kerry campaign, the more likely it will be to take responsible stands on the war in Iraq in particular, and on national security in general.

********UNQUOTE*******

[UTUSN]

5. So (Update) Now MORE Shrubbites Knew (from party_line's LBN Thread)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x704148

*******QUOTE*******

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7104-2004Jul22.html

...Former Clinton press secretary Joe Lockhart, who is serving as a spokesman for Berger during the controversy, said the expanding circle of officials who the White House acknowledges had knowledge of the criminal investigation heightens his suspicion about the timing of this week's disclosure that Berger is under investigation.

"This is the third day in a row that the story has changed," Lockhart said. "First they said they didn't know. Then they said the counsel's office was aware. Now today they acknowledge the NSC was aware. Did the political operation know? Did Karl Rove know? I think it's time for them to come clean, say what they knew, when they knew it, and what role if anything they had in leaking it."

********UNQUOTE*******

[UTUSN]

6. What's New, Watergate---Oo-oo-oo-oo-OO-oo-oo n/t

[Spygame]

7. I agree