The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 3 of 13)

br> San Francisco, California /p> p> The Clinton response re Berger's breach is to "laugh"? Outrageous! The Clinton administration legacy is one of contempt for ethics, contempt for morality, contempt for accountability, contempt for truth, contempt for security, and contempt for the American people it was sworn to serve. br> -- Kathleen Emmer br> Latrobe, Pennsylvania /p>

When I heard that Sandy Berger said he inadvertently took classified documents from the "security" archive but also admitted putting notes in his clothes my immediate thought was that "stuffing clothing is not inadvertent." Very few ask these obvious and really very simple questions or make simple declarative points anymore. There is just so much information going over the airwaves, and the Internet that too many people, even conservatives, have lost the logical ability to ask the simple but direct questions. The simple straightforward question seems like genius to us now. This is not only true in politics but in even the hard sciences where so much of the "agenda" seems to be to disprove that there is a God.

p>In George Neumayr's article "Sloppy Berger" on July 20 he does mention this contradiction by saying "inadvertently" (Berger's word for cramming notes into his clothing.)" This is the first note I have seen concerning Berger's contradiction. Nothing wrong with this statement and I was glad to see it, but even this statement is a little oblique and makes my case to a small degree. There's a place for "nuance" (Kerry) and obliquity but we could lose the simple truth in the mix and this will cause us to not even remember to use pure simple and logical statements and questions that everyone can understand. When we lose too much of the razor's edge of simple truth we eventually have no truth at all simply because we can no longer effectively communicate it in one sense or cut straight through the lies in another sense. br> -- Steve Cade br> Salem, Oregon /p> p> I was expecting to read somewhere in George Neumayr's article ("Sloppy Berger") about the "inadvertent" destruction of Bush's military records. Does this constitute sloppy journalism or an intentional omission? Considering Neumayr's aversion to sloppiness, I have to assume the later. br> --

topics:
Business, Constitution, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Israel, NATO, Africa, Medicare