On Sandy Berger. From Byron York:

Shipp is not allowed to discuss the case, so all we have is the report sent from the DC Bar to the Court of Appeals recommending that the court accept Berger’s agreement to give up his license. It is a brief document, but it does say that Berger is “aware that there is currently pending an investigation into, or a proceeding involving, allegations of misconduct”; that he “acknowledges that the material facts upon which the allegations of misconduct are predicated are true”; and that he “knows that if disciplinary proceedings based on the alleged misconduct were brought, [he] could not successfully defend against them.”

And that, apparently, is the end of the Berger matter. Some Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform wanted to hear more from Berger about some of his still-unexplained actions — “We had more questions for him,” says one GOP aide. But Republicans are now in the minority, and there is no chance that Democratic chairman Henry Waxman will pursue the matter. For its part, the Justice Department, wracked by internal scandals, has shown no interest in further investigation. So now, with his decision to give up his law license, Berger has apparently shut off the last chance for anyone to learn more about the case.

So once again a Clintonista gets off clean, with little (or at least insufficient) accountability. More importantly, once again, as in Filegate, Foster, Emailgate, etc., we will never be able to find out what really happened, and why.

There is a long essay to be written about how politically incompetent this administration has been in many areas, and about how a White House allowed its own agencies to go rogue, and behave as though it was the enemy, and to punish its political friends and reward its political enemies--the CIA, the Justice Department, the State Department, the INS. George Bush certainly brought a new tone to Washington--a pathetic one.

The GOP had 2 years to investigate Sandy Berger.
If they didn't want to do it when they had the power
why should the Dems do this now?
Wasman wants to investigate Karl Rove, it's his perogative.

Bush is pathetic because he didn't purge the State Department of enemies? Then it's no wonder that you're left "wish that we had better choices". It's because Joe McCarthy died 50 years ago.

As for Sandy Berger, you never would be able to find out what "really happened". Because, no matter what they accused him of, you would still itch for some even more incriminating deeper truth. That's the "neolibertarian" fantasy in this story, the idea that the Justice Department isn't partisan enough. To those of us who aren't "neolibertarians" or right-wing Republicans, Berger has already been convicted and punished for what he did wrong; and the Justice Department is already unethically, outrageously, impeachably partisan.

Berger has already been convicted and punished for what he did wrong; and the Justice Department is already unethically, outrageously, impeachably partisan.

If that were the case, Berger would have gotten an appropriate sentence, and questioning (latest) Anonymous Moron. If the Justice Department is partisan, it remains partisan for the Clintons, perhaps due to how many people they replaced deep within it. And the Bush administration remains incompetent to root out the traitors within, who go after them, and give a pass to those associated with previous administrations, without even demanding a proper accounting.

If the Justice Department is partisan, it remains partisan for the Clintons, perhaps due to how many people they replaced deep within it.

No, not that kind of partisan. The Bush Administration has by now replaced all of the US Attorneys, except for the 8 that it replaced twice because their first picks weren't partisan enough. Monica Goodling, who just resigned because of her partisanship, tried to cleanse Justice of every last Democrat and non-Bush-supporter. "Did you vote for George W. Bush? What do you think of Roe v Wade?" was the way that Goodling hired and fired.

Not surprisingly, a main purpose of this purge was specifically to help Republicans beat Democrats in elections. If they didn't keep Hillary Clinton or Sandy Berger (who advised John Kerry, for a time) in their crosshairs, the only reason was that they didn't even see an exploitable case, much less a fair one.

So the idea that this plead-the-fifth, resign-in-disgrace level of pro-Republican partisanship is just too soft on Democrats, is the tar pitch calling the pot not black enough. Which I suppose is "neolibertarianism".

Like I said, the talk about "rooting out the traitors within" is channelling Joe McCarthy. I never thought of him as a "neolibertarian", but the glove might fit. If George Bush has this horde of enemies in ten different agencies, it is because, just like Joe McCarthy, his own ideology is the real treason.

The Bush Administration has by now replaced all of the US Attorneys, except for the 8 that it replaced twice because their first picks weren't partisan enough.

That's an interesting fantasy. Can you back it up with citable facts?

Can you back it up with citable facts?

Two of the most clear-cut cases are David Iglesias and Bud Cummins. (Both of them were appointed by Bush in the first place.) Iglesias explained why he was fired in an op-ed piece entitled, "Why I was fired." One reason was to appease Republicans Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson, because he refused to indict some local Democrats during the election season. Another reason was that although he pursued voter fraud in his district, his approach was too bipartisan for the White House.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21iglesias.html

Meanwhile the White House has not explained why it fired Bud Cummins. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty said under subpoena that it was to make room for Timothy Griffin and not because of anything right or wrong about Cummins' record. Griffin has had numerous partisan jobs in the past 10 years: he worked for the Bush campaign, for the RNC, and for Karl Rove.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._E._Cummins_III

(And note that this Wikipedia article has a complete set of citations.)

Simberg never mentions why if the berger case was so obvioulsy rotten, why Tom DeLay, Bill Frist and the
Other GOPers didn't investigate it then?

Simberg never mentions why if the berger case was so obvioulsy rotten, why Tom DeLay, Bill Frist and the Other GOPers didn't investigate it then?

How would I know, you moron? I'm not a "GOPer." Is it their job to do so? I thought that's what the so-called "Justice Department" is supposed to do.

I see that you've come back, and that you continue to live up to the name "Anonymous Moron."