Ok. What the hell is going on here? Bush is an idiot, Cheney is the devil, Petraeus is a Bush goon and liar, but known thief Sandy “Stuff it in my undies” Berger will be the National Security Advisor to Billary? What the hell? Why doesn’t she hire Pablo Escabar to be the Drug Czar and David Duke to be the ambassador to Isreal? Well Hot Air cleans her clock so I’ll be lazy and just show you what they have to say…
Data point #1: Confessed thief Sandy Berger is good enough to become one of Hillary Clinton’s three senior national security advisors:
My informed sources suggest that what Berger destroyed were copies of the Millennium After-Action Review, a binder-sized report prepared by Richard Clarke in 2000—a year and half before the 9-11 attacks. The review made a series of recommendations for a tougher stance against bin Laden and terrorism. There are 13 or more copies of this report. But only one contains hand-written notes by President Bill Clinton. Apparently, in the margin beside the recommendations, Bill Clinton wrote NO, NO, NO next to many of the tougher policy proposals.
You can see why Clinton might be happy to see these records vanish down the memory hole.
So Berger was stuffing in pants and socks and later shredding the evidence that President Clinton did not want to take a tougher line on bin Laden, following the 1998 attack on two U.S. embassies that killed 224 people (including 12 American diplomats).
Now for the Hillary connection…
So what does the Democratic front-runner and former First Lady do?
She makes Berger one of her top three foreign policy advisers.
The ever-wise Jonathan Adler has some interesting thoughts on this over at the Volokh Conspiracy.
And I have a few questions:
Did she bring him aboard to reward him for his criminal destruction of classified material? Or did she sign him up because of his stellar record in fighting bin Laden in the late 1990s?
She might have brought him on board to keep him from telling anyone what he knows.
Data point #2: Hillary wants convicted felon Norman Hsu’s Ponzi scheme proceeds, and that appears to be the source of the money that he lavished on nearly every Democrat who ever got within arms’ reach of the man, re-laundered so that she can re-accept them.
If you’re keeping track, that’s two known criminals that the Democrats expressly embrace and approve of. They’re not giving Hsu’s money back on the principle that it’s tainted; they’re giving it back in the hopes that they’ll be able to appear clean, and then get the money back shortly. And they’re only giving it back because he got caught. Clinton, for one, was warned that he was dirty, yet took his money anyway.
Now, let’s look at a few people the Democrats neither embrace nor approve of.
John Rizzo, nominated to become the CIA’s counsel general by the Bush administration, is being sidelined by Democrat fears that he may be too tough on captured terrorists.
Ted Olson, whom Sen. Harry Reid will block to become the next Attorney General, though Olson has already served as US Solicitor General and lost his wife, Barbara, in American Airlines Flight 77 on 9-11.
Gen. David Petraeus, smeared by the Democrat MoveOn machine, though he has spent about 30 years in uniform and may yet save the Iraq war. MoveOn wasn’t alone in smearing the general: Sen. Clinton lectured the general and Democrats in the House and Senate all but accused him of perjury to his face. Dubbing Petraeus’ testimony the “Bush report,” as most Democrats have by now, accuses him of lying under oath when he said the testimony was his own work.
Tally it up: Criminals and smear artists, ok with Democrats. John Rizzo, Ted Olson and Gen. David Patraeus, not ok with Democrats. The twice-demoted Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp is evidently the Democrats’ model soldier; Gen. Petraeus is just a political shill.