Talk:Sandy Berger

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Sandy Berger's booking photo.

What do you think, is this better? Rob Smith 20:59, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

it's pretty bad. :) RJJensen 21:00, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
He's not smiling. Rob Smith 21:02, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
Evidence suggests he was destroying Clinton admin info about its failure to deal with bin Laden & al-Queada. As an historian, this is unholy. Rob Smith 21:04, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
that's just speculation. He only had xerox copies of the documents (the originals were electronic and on a hard drive). The issue for conservatives is how Clinton dealt with Al-Queada and that is obscured by excessive attention to the court case. RJJensen 21:25, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

Jim Baker, Henry Kissinger, and others, all have speculated, said, it is a foregone conclusion he destroyed evidence, supplanted it. I don't know a single policy person, Democrat or Republican who doubts this, even if they might not state it publicly. As conservatives, we don't need a court conviction to prove what common sense tells us. Not everything, at that time, was digitized. If he wasn't there to destroy evidence, you want us to believe he took such a huge risk for clap-trap? Open your mind! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 21:32, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

the speculation and surmises are thoroughly covered in the article. The problem is that it diverts our readers away from the big issues of foreign policy, and instead focuses them on the personal aberrations of a former policy maker. RJJensen 21:36, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
I understand, completely, where you are coming from, RJ. There is a middle ground. As conservatives, and as Christians, deceit ranks as high as foreign policy, or anything else. The deceit is evidence of their inability to do anything ethically, and surely you would agree, lack of ethics in implementing and forging foreign policy, or monetary policy is a major impediment. I have confidence in the ability of two scholars like you and Rob, to arrive at a mutually acceptable manner of making BOTH points! :-) -- --ṬK/Admin/Talk 21:43, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
It's liberal deceit pure & simple. Stealing the documents obviously to coverup and distort the historical record. That's an unpardonable sin, kind of like the burning of the Library at Alexandria by Christians, or Nazi book burning. The conviction bares out the moral judgement. He belongs in that category. Rob Smith 22:06, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
he did not actually burn down the National Archives. I was there three weeks ago and it is operating normally. :) RJJensen 22:09, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
Morelike an 18 minute gap in the Watergate tapes, only that was not directly related to a vital issue of national security. Rob Smith 13:19, 7 August 2009 (EDT)
yes that's a good analogy. RJJensen 13:46, 7 August 2009 (EDT)