As I was watching the news and looking at the paper today and seeing how the media are treating Cheney's accidental shooting of a fellow hunter as though it were a Major World Event, my mind lapsed back to the little incident where Sandy Berger had visited the National Archives with his top-secret security clearance, and subsequently piflered and destroyed some very important documents relating to the War on Terror, and then got nothing more than a slap on the wrist, and never gave any kind of explanation for doing it. And I thought how funny it was that an event of such magnitude was just kinda swept under the rug by the media.

So the question I have for debate is simple:

Which incident is more deserving of the media's attention, Cheney's accidental shooting of a hunting buddy, or Sandy Berger's unexplained and virtually unpunished destruction of these classified documents?

Which incident is more deserving of the media's attention, Cheney's accidental shooting of a hunting buddy, or Sandy Berger's unexplained and virtually unpunished destruction of these classified documents?
I remember hearing a lot about this case, so in my opinion it got plenty of media attention. Furthermore, you are incorrect that he destroyed classified documents - he destroyed copies of classified documents - the originals were never in his possesion. So I think your premise for the question is seriously flawed.

That is probably also the reason he only got a "slap on the wrist". Since he only destroyed the copies, there was no intention of destroying information, so his intent could hardly have been malicious.

Edited to add: I didn't vote, because I think both cases has newsworthiness, and I think both cases have gotten adequate attention. But the Dick Cheny is case is certainly grounds for a lot more jokes.

Berger's felony national security violations, which were part of the Clinton administration's attempt to cover-up their incompetence in protecting our country from Islamist terror, were more newsworthy.

But you have to keep in mind that the left wing press adored Bill Clinton. He was "one of them". They shared his core beliefs, his moral code, and his habit of putting style over substance. They helped the democrats rationalize away his mulitiple felonies, his impeachment, and his lack of diligence with respect to America's security.

In contrast, the Bush haters in the press look for any opportunity to bash the administration whether the reason is fair or not. They have declared "war" on the Bush administration and this has been evident ever since they reported that Kerry had won based on exit polling.

Cheney was involved in an unfortunate accident. It was a "private" matter. It was not a matter of his official capacity.

The same press that bent over backwards to convince the population that the DNC talking points about Monica and Clinton were the reality is doing their best to smear the Vice President and the President at every turn.

As I said in here yesterday, the 8 years of the Bush administration will provide a tsunami of evidence documenting the hypocrisy, blatant bias, and double standards regularly employed by the left and their willing accomplices in the "mainstream" media.

It seems this question could more easily be about the King funeral. The Berger story was from long ago and did get significant media play.

In answer to your question, the Cheney story is eminently more newsworthy because of the titillation of a sitting vice president shooting someone and the deadline pleasing drama about what did the president know and when did he know it and why did he wait so long to share that information.


In terms of significance, the Berger story clearly has more significance and was worthy of a serious investigation into his conduct.

But the Berger story was news, and unless I've missed a new development, is now old news.

As for lordhelmet's rhetoric


This is an unfortunate partisan vague rant that is impossible to contest because it actually says nothing with very loud words.

The media is latching onto this case because it exposes flaws in the media that are not related to blatant bias, double standards, or being media accomplices.

This is the problem with the media that overhypes runaway brides, lost teens in the islands, and women being removed from life support. This is pulp news and it is followed so closely for being titillating. In short it is good for the ratings and will be explored ad nauseum because of ratings not newsworthiness.

Sandy Berger and a score of other real scandals going on today can;t hold a candle to news that is as interesting to many Americans as the Bachelor.

Are we back to ignoring the fact that Sandy Berger took COPIES of classified documents and the originals are still in place? The originals never left the building!

For the love of God, how many times to we have to rehash this? I hated the Clintons and their ilk for the same reasons my "fellow" (and I'm using that term loosely) republicans do, but this is empty rhetoric.

But Kennedy....but Clinton...but Berger......yadda yadda yadda...

The first time I voted for Bush, I thought we were getting better than those examples. But everytime this administration shows a true lack of competence, they lower the bar to those idiots to make it seem ok.

Which incident is more deserving of the media's attention, Cheney's accidental shooting of a hunting buddy, or Sandy Berger's unexplained and virtually unpunished destruction of these classified documents?
This question is a tad loaded. As has been pointed out already, no original documents were destroyed, only copies. Much media attention was made of it, but admittedly it does pale in comparison to the uproar over Cheney's gun mishap. The reason is simple: which story is more sensational? That's easy.

Yesterday, Bill O' Reilly said he thought the remarks of former Vice President Al Gore made in Saudia Arabia about the treatment of Arabs in America were more newsworthy than current Vice President Dick Cheney accidently shooting and wounding a man during a quail hunt.

Clarence Page told O'Reilly that in his news judgement the actions of the current Vice President were more important and newsworthy than those of the past one.

Same thing applies here. Nice try though, Blackstone to try and change the subject.

More deserving of media attention? Definitely the Berger case since it involved criminal activity by a Federal Employee at are most important home of important documents (the archives).
However, if I was a news director I would DEFINITELY have my staff devote a lot of time and attention to the Cheney incident because that is what gets viewers. Everyone knows DICK Cheney...not many know of Sandy Berger. We are conspiracy/gossip obsessed.

Which incident is more deserving of the media's attention, Cheney's accidental shooting of a hunting buddy, or Sandy Berger's unexplained and virtually unpunished destruction of these classified documents?

If I were an editor, Dick Cheney would be the larger story based solely on name recognition.

Additionally:

Running through my mind when I see "destruction of classified documents" are the names Oliver North, and the "18 minutes" of Nixon's tapes as well as the release of the Pentagon Papers. Classified documents can and do get destroyed or released intentionally on a fairly regular basis.

On the other hand, a search for "Hamilton Burr duel" has led me on several occasions to the following search result:


I would propose, that if after 202 years, someone still feels it is headline news that a Vice President shot someone; that when it happens a second time, it still has to be considered headline news.

That's the first I've heard of that. According to this article, "Berger's home and office were searched earlier this year by FBI agents armed with warrants after the former Clinton adviser voluntarily returned some sensitive documents to the National Archives and admitted he also removed handwritten notes he had made while reviewing the sensitive documents." I don't know how he could have "returned" something that "never left the building". And apparently he didn't return everything. The article continues:

"However, some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of Al Qaeda terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing, officials and lawyers said. Officials said the missing documents also identified America's terror vulnerabilities at airports to seaports."

If you have additional information that contradicts this, I'd be interested in seeing it.


Umm, I don't recall asking anyone to compare the Bush Adminstration to past administrations. The debate question I posed was very simple: Which story is more newsworthy?


That's nice, but I wasn't asking about what Gore said. I was asking about the criminal actions of someone with a high security clearance, involving national security implications, versus a hunting accident. Do you have anything to contribute at all?


Now that's probably about the most ironic statement on the thread so far.

I nulled my vote.

Given that the Berger story is old news and the Cheney story is new news, I think this whole thread is bogus.

When we write of Berger, we're really thinking Bill Clinton. There's nothing like bashing Clinton to get the heat off Republicans.

You don't have to look far for an example and it only takes three guesses (the first two don't count) to figure out who provided it. Sorry LH but that dog quit hunting (no reference to Cheney) a long while back.

PRIME EXAMPLE




You don't have to look far for an example and it only takes three guesses (the first two don't count) to figure out who provided it. Sorry LH but that dog quit hunting (no reference to Cheney) a long while back.



This coupled with his work on the King thread seem to indicate a trend.

The age of the news is irrelevant. The Berger story wasn't as big as the Cheney story even when it happened.

That's probably true. If I remember correctly, the Bush campaign tried (possibly with minor succcess) to play up Berger's role in John Kerry's campaign. It wasn't of course, as successful the Swifties making a villian of a legitimate war hero while contributing to the reelection of someone with a highly suspect military record.

It really opens up old wounds, especially with Kerry supporters, to start threads like this.

What I have to contribute is the news judgment of a journalist (Clarence Page) who said the Cheney shooting is newsworthy because the actions of a current vice-president is more newsworthy than the actions of a former vice-president.

I'll break it down even further for you. The actions of Dick Cheney in 2006 are more newsworthy than those of Sandy Berger in 2004. The actions of the current vice-president are more newsworthy than those of a bureaucrat from a previous administration.

What I have to contribute is a response to your question. Now you may not like the answer but that's not my problem. You see, Blackstone, while you get to pose the question, I get to answer the question. Posing the questions doesn't give you the prerogative to limit the scope of my answer. As long as it is relevant to the question, I can contribute a response in whatever manner I see fit as long as it stays within the parameters of the central issue.

If you believe my answers aren't well reasoned or thought out, perhaps the same might be said of your original question.

Could it actually be that the same posters who pooh-poohed the notion of the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent being illegal or compromising to the national security think that Sandy Berger's admission to copying and destroying the copies of classified documents consider THAT a crime? I smell a double standard.

The previous posters are right; what Sandy Berger did is old news. Prosecutors have had plenty of time to haul him up on charges, but they didn't.

Now regarding the current story with Cheney: All of us have heard umpteen times (if we've been watching TV or listening to news on the radio) that the incident involving the V.P. is only the second recorded time in our nation's history that a sitting Vice President has shot somebody, albeit for different reasons. There is a question as to whether the one beer Cheney admitted to having during lunch was still active in his system and caused some impairment of reflexes or judgment (remember, he's a heart patient who has a medical team accompany him on trips--this does not suggest a person in robust, good health and off medications).

This question remains alive because the deputy sheriff was stopped by the Secret Service from interviewing Cheney and Cheney placed the responsibility on the owner of the ranch to give interviews while he, shall we say, "recuperated" in whatever way was necessary.

I dunno--maybe he was crying about it and thought he would be perceived as being unmanly to cry about accidentally shooting someone he called his "friend" (I wouldn't have thought so, but then I think men are entitled to express their emotions). It might be as simple as that.

But when this same Cheney had been called upon to all but hold his President's hand when the President was called to testify before the 9/11 Commission, and while Cheney gives precious few interviews to begin with and is perceived to be tight-lipped, the opportunity is there to suspect that there might have been some wrongdoing that they didn't want out in the open.

That makes for an interesting news story.

No double standard involved here at all. First off, Plame was NOT a "CIA agent". She was a desk jockey with an undercover status that was blown long before the Bush people came into the White House. This is a "political" issue, not a "national security" issue. Indeed, Fitzgerald has found no underlying crime. Instead, he got Scooter lying to try to play the old fashioned Washington game of CYA.

Berger? He was just trying to cover up his image and keep the pretend story going that the Clinton administration actually took the terrorist threat seriously (they didn't). Stuffing documents in his socks and underpants? Please.

The double standard that is in play currently is that an NSA insider conspired with the NY Times (ie., the official DNC media outlet) to "out" one of the most sensitive anti-terrorist intelligence operations that was going in a CLEAR violation of national security laws. The times and their democratic supporters have given not one whit to the damage that has caused to our ability to track and monitor potential terrorists while they've gotten themselves into a hissy fit about wiretapping and other methods of surveillance (as if anyone would actually want to listen to THEM).

That, rather than the no-account Plame story, has been the primary double standard shown. That operation is blown and I'm sure millions if not billions of taxpayer law enforcement dollars have gone straight down the toilet as a result.

Is Cheney a bigger story than Berger. I guess so, because it's "current".

A couple of points here:

1) Please provide a link that states that Valerie Plame was just a "desk jockey with an undercover status blown long before the Bush people came into the White House."

If Plame just sat at a desk and didn't do CIA agent "stuff," why would she need to be undercover at all?

2) And speaking of a politician playing the "old fashioned Washington game of CYA," wasn't Dick Cheney doing that as well?


EDIT: Did you intend to delete the content I wrote between "The previous posters are right" paragraph and the statement "That makes for an interesting story" when you quoted me? Because it doesn't make sense without the paragraph preceding my last sentence, q.v.:

A good summary of the status of Plame's "covert" status can be found here:

Plame's undercover status

The "desk jockey" label is my characterization. She did "CIA stuff" just like tens of thousands of other individuals do at that agency.

She is married to a former member of the Clinton administration and a rabid Bush hater (Joe Wilson) who the 9/11 commission concluded was either lying or mistaken in HIS testimony to the commission. So, best case, the guy was confused and worst case a liar (which would put him in good company in the previous administration).

She wasn't undercover. When Novak called the CIA to confirm that she worked there, they said "yes". When he asked if it would be a major problem if her name was mentioned, they said "no".

This is, like all the rest of the manufactured Bush administration "scandals", much ado about nothing.

It seems that the democrats will not rest until they can point to the Bush people and rationalize to themselves that they are more corrupt than the scandal-ridden Clinton mis-administration was.

Lordhelmet: Your link is interesting, especially since it says the CIA "outed" Plame to the Cubans. Now why would they do that?

And if it wasn't a crime to out Valerie Plame, then why didn't somebody in the Adminstration just come forward and say that s/he did it? As you pointed out, it cost the American people a lot of money to conduct Fitzgerald's investigation.

As far as Joe Wilson lying to the 9/11 Commission--I possess a copy of the report. I will have to look up Wilson's testimony to determine just exactly what he is said to have lied about.
------------------------------------------

But back to the subject of the newsworthiness of Sandy Berger's behavior and Dick Cheney's:

Sandy Berger was not prosecuted for what he did. He came clean about it.

Dick Cheney and his Secret Service contingent did not tell the deputy sheriff what happened when initially questioned--which makes it look as though Cheney had something to hide.

Further, Cheney is a secretive person. I am sure that this intrigues the news media who feel that there must be something interesting and important that he's not telling.

If there is nothing for which Cheney is actually culpable, then it is the clumsy way he handled the situation that raised the red flags in the media and gave us nearly non-stop coverage of what you characterize as a non-issue. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan certainly said as much, and he is most certainly NOT a Democrat.

But then...Do any of us really know Dick?

EDIT: I will not be able to respond to posts for a while. There is thunder and freezing rain going on outside my window, and I think it prudent to shut off the computer. I will address your post in progress later. 'Til then...

Berger was not prosecuted? He plead GUILTY!

Berger pleads guilty, Washington Post

Cheney did nothing wrong according to the police.

He's a secretive person? Good. We're at war. We don't need a blabbermouth VP at this time in our history. Furthermore, the role of the VP is to stay in the background that's why the press hammering for not having "more press conferences" is insane.

We have a President. Cheney is his backup and works behind the scenes primarily.

That's the way it should be.

Okay, my bad. I must've had him mixed up with somebody else. I looked up the sentencing of Berger after you provided the link. Seems he was ordered to pay $50 grand as punishment, plus community service and additional costs. September 8, 2005 link



From Wikipedia, link

So he was found guilty of a misdemeanor.

But really, the fact that I didn't know what happened to the guy, and I'm usually an avid watcher of CNN, tells me that the press didn't regard it as such a big story; hence my assertion that the Veep story is bigger, at least now.

You're right--Cheney should probably stay in the background and not give so many press conferences--especially since the last few times he contradicted what his boss said, especially about the Iraqi insurgency being in its "last throes."

I stand by my opinion that Cheney's story is bigger. After all, somebody did get seriously hurt, there was an initial lack of cooperation with jursidictional law enforcement officials, and he is the Vice President.