kuxiao17

p> BUSH SOFT ON SANDY br> Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.'s Berger Again : /p> p>Regarding the Clinton legal legacy (or lack of it), having followed The American Spectator , the Washington Times and talk radio during the Clinton years, I am amazed that Hillary Clinton is remotely considering running for President in 2008, for the negative, even indictable, information revealed about her during the 1990s is mountainous. Yes, not everyone got the message back then and we do have a great many new voters since 2000. Still, somebody in the Hillary camp needs to take notice before that mountain falls upon them: A decade ago, the Internet was in its infancy. Today, it is so advanced that the Limbaughs of the world have become stale and derivative because of its speed and breadth of coverage. Ms. Clinton, you can Rodham all you wish in your Socio-Centrist posturing. But the facts about your past are all going to be re-reported all over again with mega-wattage and lightning speed via news sources that did not exist when Mr. Foster slipped and fell on his gun in the park and which now far exceed the Obsolete Media both in reach and credibility. The event will make the Swift Boaters seem like canoe campers, leaving you far up your Whitewater without a paddle. Suggestion: Maybe you could get a Reality TV deal; If Ozzy could do it, how about you and Bill? I hear your language (plus some other stuff) is right up there in Rosie O'Donnell's league. br> -- Gene Wright br> Laguna Niguel, California /p>

p> Enjoyed reading your most recent column regarding the Sandy Berger National Archives Caper. During his book signing tour several months ago, I brought up this subject with former Clinton advisor Dick Morris and got his take on this caper. He stated quite firmly that "Hillary's fingerprints were all over this." I'm surprised that nobody is bringing up the proposition that Sandy Berger was acting under the direction of a higher up with his reward being a position in the upcoming probable Clinton administration. Am I missing something, or should we be ready to point the finger at somebody bigger than Mr. Berger behind this breach of national security? br> -- Dan Trimmer br> Enterprise, Florida /p> p> The bad thing is that no matter what crimes the Clintons and their ilk do the MSM finds a way to make it into nothing. I still do not understand why the "JUSTICE" Department did not throw the book at Berger. Just think if the Queen of Slime becomes President, Berger can become National Security Adviser again, since his slap on the wrist was only a three-year ban on his viewing secret items. It will end just in time for a Democrat President. br> -- Elaine Kyle /p>

Yeah, yeah, yeah -- the leftists won't do anything to shine the light of truth on Sandy Berger's treason. So what else is new?

The question you should be asking is why the hell the Bush Justice Department didn't even bother to throw his treasonous rear in prison for 20 years, instead of letting him off with a slap on the wrist?

p>And when he's Hillary Clinton's National Security Adviser, it's a pretty sure bet his treason will be buried even deeper. br> -- Jim Switz br> Port Townsend, Washington