Originally Posted by nonsqtr";p=&quot

This is very true. Blade has a good point here. It seems to me, that allowing a character like Sandy Berger into the "official" tent, was a very bad political move on Hillary's part. That's just low-hanging fruit, for some Republican 527 or something. I mean, Sandy's on the same level as a Feith - he's the next best thing to being an actual, real, traitor (you know, destroying national security documents is "pretty serious", that's not exactly "comforting the enemy", but that's like, "pretty serious") -

You know, and I mean, if it were legit, all Clinton had to do is what Bushie's doing now, which is basically to snap his fingers and point to it and say, "classified", and it happens. And I mean, same way with "unclassified", and even with "destroy the CIA video-tapes", right? As near as I can tell, the deep dark world of "national security" is mainly the Prez's call, subject only to some limited oversight by "very trusted senior Senators".

So I mean, why would a Prez send a Sandy Burglar to steal docs out of the archive and stuff 'em in his pants and every other place he could find? I mean, Jeez.... was we dressed all in black, and did he have one of those little black eye-patch things like on the cover of those Genesis albums?