Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Ty, you forget that the Clintons have a history of cutting the cord from prior FOB's once they get into the slightest trouble. Honed survival techniques to a new art.
|
Which is why Clinton was publicly defending Berger a day or two ago? Oh, right, that's just his duplicity. Once you guys start with the Clinton conspiracy theories, any twist can be explained.
Quote:
|
What does leaking it before Condi's testimony do? Remember, the GOP was already on the ropes at that time because of Clarke's one-sided testimony.
|
It gets it lost. You're arguing contradictory ideas: (a) they did it because it hurts the GOP, and (b) they did it now instead of having it come out in October. If it was really hurting the GOP, they'd have waited 'til October. (And you wouldn't see all these GOP legislators (David, Santorum, Hastert, etc.) piling on the story by attacking Berger -- they'd be shutting up to be done with it.) And if Berger leaked to get it out sooner rather than later, why now and not months ago?
