Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Fair enough. One was purportedly a cover-up; the other was improper disclosure that the press likely would say is "information the public has a right to".
Why do you think the press coverage might differ?
And, regardless of press coverage, which concerns you more--compromising intelligence, or compromising intelligence in an effort to cover something up?
(again, assuming the allegations about Berger are true).
|
The press coverage surely differs because there was a concerted effort by conservatives to smear Berger. E.g., Republican lawmakers make statements about how important it was that we get to the bottom of the allegations against Berger. I don't see Democrats doing this to Shelby -- even though investigators have concluded that the allegations are correct in his case -- because they don't need to distract anyone from the 9/11 report this week.
And what Shelby did was surely much, much worse than what Berger is alleged to have done. What Berger did is far less likely to aid the enemy.
