There’s even more. This is from a website called Democracy Now, and I think that may be some kook left-wing fringe site. Well, I think they all are, but I think that’s the website, is the point. It says here: “Democratic Party delegates including Dennis Kucinich struck a deal this weekend with representatives of John Kerry over the party’s stance on the Iraq war. The deal happened this weekend at the Democratic Party Platform Convention in Miami. Kucinich’s delegates withdrew their proposal for a quick withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The critical paragraph was worked out in negotiations led by Sandy Berger, who was President Bill Clinton’s national security advisor,” and from Axis of Logic, “Sometime after Senator Kerry’s introduction to the New York Jewish community leaders, he decided his choices for envoy were inappropriate. Instead of Clinton, Carter, or Baker, he now lists Sandy Berger and Dennis Ross as the type of person he would send to the Middle East.”
This is not “informal.” And at Anti-War.com, another website. “In case of Kerry’s victory, Dick Holbrooke would be one of the main candidates for secretary of state, which would probably result in a much more active role of the U.S. in the Balkans. Other candidates are Sandy Berger and Joe Biden.” So, the New York Times is all concerned that this little snafu here will “potentially damage” Berger — potentially, ladies and gentlemen — damage Berger’s chance to be secretary of state. There’s much more just on this one little research page we did, but it wasn’t informal. You know, a lot of people say, “Okay, why now? Who leaked this?” A lot of people think it came out of the justice department.
But remember, my friends, I told you that the minute John Edwards was chosen as the veep by John Kerry, that the Clinton phasers would be switched from stun to kill. Just keep this in mind. This does involve the presidential campaign, make no mistake about it — and make no mistake about something else. The Clintons do not want Kerry-Edwards to win, for two reasons. A, 2008, but also they need to make sure that Edwards does not rise any higher in stature because he thus becomes a competitor to Mrs. Clinton — who also, by the way, only wears pants.
RUSH: There’s another aspect of this, ladies and gentlemen, the missing documents that has a lot of people interested, too, particularly Republican Senator Gordon Smith from Oregon. Now, it’s interesting that Gordon Smith is out speaking on this because he never speaks on anything. He speaks on the Senate floor, but you never see Gordon Smith actually joining the political us-versus-them fray, and yet he has done so. One of the documents that Berger looked at and is missing, reviewed terrorist plots to disrupt the millennium celebrations, and it is said to pinpoint the many vulnerabilities in homeland defenses — and this was during the Clinton administration, and that may be one of the reasons that they, the Clinton people, wanted this document out of there.
But beyond that, Senator Gordon Smith claimed that there is “a curious connection” between the removal of these documents and the Kerry press conference on port security, which took place last December 17th. Kerry also made news with a big press conference on port security back in May of this year. I got a note from one of my subscribers at 24/7, reminding me that I had said something some time ago, and I think it was about this port business, when Kerry made a big speech about our vulnerabilities. Oh, I know. This was recent. Kerry has refused intelligence briefings, remember that? Thank goodness my fertile mind comes alive. Kerry refused intelligence briefings, and he didn’t care and wasn’t interested in them. He had to pick his vice president, and then he had to go listen to Whoopi Goldberg’s raunch fest, and yet he’s out there telling us of our intelligence problems. And I remember saying, “Well, who’s telling him this stuff? If he’s not getting briefings from the U.S. government, where is he getting these briefings? Where is he learning about port security problems?” because he was specific about it.
And this is another area that people are interested in. Could it be that the documents that Berger took out were shared with Kerry? And that’s what makes this relevant to the presidential campaign. It’s one thing to take ’em out of there. It’s another thing to start sharing them with people. Now, we know that Clinton knew what was in the documents. So Berger wasn’t going in there to find out something for Clinton, and when he went in there he was “informal.” We now know that’s not true. He was a foreign policy advisor to Kerry, and he went ahead and testified before the 9/11 Commission knowing full well what he had done. So there are a lot of people wondering now if what was in the documents that Berger saw and in perhaps the documents that now cannot be found, if some of that information made its way to the Kerry campaign to give him some leg up on things. That would be another criminal violation. It’s one thing to take it out of there. It’s another thing to disseminate it. I think that’s what’s got Gordon Smith. Gordon Smith does not join these frays, but he did yesterday, along with Saxby Chambliss, the Republican senator from Georgia.
<*ICON*>Your Resource for Combating the Partisan Media, Liberals and Bush-Haters…
<a target=new href=”/home/menu/fstack.guest.html”>(…Rush’s John F. Kerry Stack of Stuff packed with quotes, flips & audio!)</a></span>