Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Clinton Admin and missing Terror Memos

Clinton Admin and missing Terror Memos
Thread Tools
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2004, 10:46 AM
 
I am suprised no one has brought up Clinton's dismissal of key information about terrorist attacks...wait a sec, no I am not! Now it seems as if there is some sort of cover up. Seems as if the impeached President Bill Clinton should have been paying more attention to Al Quaeda and a little less attention to fat interns.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...LATE=HOME.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sandy Berger, former President Clinton's national security adviser, is under criminal investigation by the Justice Department after highly classified terrorism documents disappeared while he was reviewing what should be turned over to the Sept. 11 commission.

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.

However, some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of al-Qaida terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing, officials and lawyers told The Associated Press. Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket and pants, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.
     
Logic
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2004, 10:48 AM
 
Care to show me in what way Clinton dismissed key information except that a former employee of his is involved?

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
dcolton  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2004, 10:59 AM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
Care to show me in what way Clinton dismissed key information except that a former employee of his is involved?
Thats the point. It has been reported that clinton ignored some key info about al queda. Besides, the key is EMPLOYEE of clinton.
     
Logic
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2004, 11:01 AM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
Thats the point. It has been reported that clinton ignored some key info about al queda. Besides, the key is EMPLOYEE of clinton.
Does that mean that Bush is responsible for the Abu Ga....uhhhh, uhhh, reb torture, rape and murder? Since it was an employee of his that did that?

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
dcolton  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2004, 11:04 AM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
Does that mean that Bush is responsible for the Abu Ga....uhhhh, uhhh, reb torture, rape and murder? Since it was an employee of his that did that?
Thats what you libs tend to claim.
     
Logic
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2004, 12:43 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
Thats what you libs tend to claim.
Aren't you claiming that Clinton was responsible for hiding these memos?

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2004, 12:54 PM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
Aren't you claiming that Clinton was responsible for hiding these memos?
heh. Nah, the Clintons never lost any important papers


OK, so when Dubya's staff loses memos relating to terrorism - we can expect that liberals will dismiss it as as 'accident'.
     
Y3a
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2004, 01:30 PM
 
Sandy berger took stuff from the archives relating to Clinton doing NOTHING and a bunch of other stuff relating to the lack of plans they had to deal with terrorism. The 9/11 comittee never got to study this stuff so doesn't that mean evidence tampering? Berger had SOME IN HIS SAFE, and some were drafts from clarke, which shows NO PLAN. Berger said he shreded some of the documents. Berger was there on request from the Clinton Admin.... Looks pretty bad for helping that legacy...LOL
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2004, 01:35 PM
 
I guess this puts the "inadvertent" claims to rest.
Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2004, 01:38 PM
 
So when Rumsfeld loses memos relating to terrorism we can expect silence from the liberals.

say, um, isn't this the third prong?
     
typoon
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Tollbooth Capital of the US
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2004, 02:09 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
heh. Nah, the Clintons never lost any important papers


OK, so when Dubya's staff loses memos relating to terrorism - we can expect that liberals will dismiss it as as 'accident'.
Nah, Clinton only lost the Nuclear lauch codes twice.
"Evil is Powerless If the Good are Unafraid." -Ronald Reagan

Apple and Intel, the dawning of a NEW era.
     
Y3a
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 07:01 AM
 
Big difference between 'loosing documents' and smuggling them out in IN HIS SOCKS. The liar Berger even says "it was an honest mistake" GOD WHAT AN IDIOT BERGER IS!

He was one of Kerrys 'advisors' ?????
OH GOOD

Garbage in garbage out, no wonder Kerry sounds like and idiot on security measures etc.
I wonder if the rest of Kerry's personal judgements are as flawed??
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 07:15 AM
 
A government official with knowledge of the probe said Berger removed from archives files all five or six drafts of a critique of the government's response to the millennium terrorism threat, which he said was classified "codeword," the government's highest level of document security.
Washington Post

Berger is very smart. Not only is he a former deputy National Security advisor in the Carter Administration, and National Security Advisior in the Clinton Administration, he is also a former partner in one of DC's most respected law firms. This is a person trained to handle sensitive documents. I'll let the criminal investigation have the final word, but it certainly looks bad. It looks like he wasn't just casually removing documents. It looks like he was trying to erase something from the government's record entirely. The only word for that is a cover up.

But maybe he is innocent. That's why we have trials and juries.
     
slow moe
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 09:23 AM
 
Umm... The dog ate my homework, sir?
Lysdexics have more fnu.
     
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 09:42 AM
 
This just confirms you can't trust the Democrats with national security. That is plain as day. The Clinton, Democrat Chinese connection was also swept under the rug. Looks like Kerry is just another amoral Democrat willing to break the law to suit his ambitions. Don't tell me Kerry did not receive this sensitive information to cover the coverup of the 911 investigation. Berger the bagman got caught. My question is, why was this kept secret so long? Why didn't the Democrats seek to diffuse this earlier?
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 09:50 AM
 
Originally posted by Orion27:
This just confirms you can't trust the Democrats with national security. That is plain as day. The Clinton, Democrat Chinese connection was also swept under the rug. Looks like Kerry is just another amoral Democrat willing to break the law to suit his ambitions. Don't tell me Kerry did not receive this sensitive information to cover the coverup of the 911 investigation. Berger the bagman got caught. My question is, why was this kept secret so long? Why didn't the Democrats seek to diffuse this earlier?
This just confirms you can't trust Sandy Berger with national security documents. That is all.

Blanket generalizations are no good in any argument. Otherwise, we could talk about Oliver North and the Iran-Contra scandal. Then, the same statement would apply in the same circumstance. We could fix your sentence to say that "you can't trust the Republicans with national security".

Get the point?
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
boots
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Unknown
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 10:09 AM
 
Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
This just confirms you can't trust Sandy Berger with national security documents. That is all.

Blanket generalizations are no good in any argument. Otherwise, we could talk about Oliver North and the Iran-Contra scandal. Then, the same statement would apply in the same circumstance. We could fix your sentence to say that "you can't trust the Republicans with national security".

Get the point?
In general, you can't trust people in power. Nor should you. This is why public debate is a good thing.

back on topic: Sounds kinda fishy....though I'm not sure I buy the hyperbole coming out of the Republican leadership.

When a politician tells me a 10.5 earthquake hits somewhere, I will translate that to 4.2.

If Heaven has a dress code, I'm walkin to Hell in my Tony Lamas.
     
Dakar
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pretentiously Retired.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 10:09 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
So when Rumsfeld loses memos relating to terrorism we can expect silence from the liberals.
Are we ignoring the fact that Berger no longer works under Clinton? WIll you hold Bush accountable for what Rumsfeld does 4 or 8 years from now?
     
Y3a
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 10:29 AM
 
So, how can SNEAKING DOCUMENTS OUT OF THE ARCHIVE IN YOUR SOCKS be an "Honest Mistake"??? I guess Sandy doesn't KNOW WHAT THE WORD HONESTY MEANS?? Face it, he did wrong, he got caught.


Ollie North was selling defective weapons at 10 times the cost and splitting the profits with the Contra, so no US money was used. BIG DIFFERENCE. Now THAT was Funny!
     
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 10:58 AM
 
Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
This just confirms you can't trust Sandy Berger with national security documents. That is all.

Blanket generalizations are no good in any argument. Otherwise, we could talk about Oliver North and the Iran-Contra scandal. Then, the same statement would apply in the same circumstance. We could fix your sentence to say that "you can't trust the Republicans with national security".

Get the point?
No. Oliver North is a Patriot. Going after the communists in Central America was a good thing. The Democrats thought communists running amok was a good thing. The Democrats thought castrating the CIA was a good thing. Not! Berger thinks revisionism is a good thing. Absentmindedly doesn't happen the way the Berger scenario is being described. Let's see how the New York Times buries this and how it is treated on it's OP ED pages. Let's see how Dowd, Krugman and Kristoff handle this one. We know how Clinton is dealing with it. Quote : ... we were all laughing about it..... YUK YUK......
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 11:33 AM
 
Originally posted by Y3a:
So, how can SNEAKING DOCUMENTS OUT OF THE ARCHIVE IN YOUR SOCKS be an "Honest Mistake"??? I guess Sandy doesn't KNOW WHAT THE WORD HONESTY MEANS?? Face it, he did wrong, he got caught.


Ollie North was selling defective weapons at 10 times the cost and splitting the profits with the Contra, so no US money was used. BIG DIFFERENCE. Now THAT was Funny!
Originally posted by Orion27:
No. Oliver North is a Patriot. Going after the communists in Central America was a good thing. The Democrats thought communists running amok was a good thing. The Democrats thought castrating the CIA was a good thing. Not! Berger thinks revisionism is a good thing. Absentmindedly doesn't happen the way the Berger scenario is being described. Let's see how the New York Times buries this and how it is treated on it's OP ED pages. Let's see how Dowd, Krugman and Kristoff handle this one. We know how Clinton is dealing with it. Quote : ... we were all laughing about it..... YUK YUK......
Excusing Oliver North's acts while frothing at the mouth over Sandy Berger's acts leaves neither one of you with a logical basis on which to form your arguments. Both Oliver North and Sandy Berger secreted away from secure facilities classified, and possibly incriminating, information. They were both wrong and Oliver North was punished and Sandy Berger should be punished as well.

However, this is becoming a distraction from the point of my original post. My argument remains: making blanket statements about the entire Democratic party based on the actions of one person (Sandy Berger) is idiotic, just as idiotic as making blanket statements about the entire Republican Party based on the actions of one person (Oliver North). Got it?!?
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 11:45 AM
 
Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Excusing Oliver North's acts while frothing at the mouth over Sandy Berger's acts leaves neither one of you with a logical basis on which to form your arguments. Both Oliver North and Sandy Berger secreted away from secure facilities classified, and possibly incriminating, information. They were both wrong and Oliver North was punished and Sandy Berger should be punished as well.

However, this is becoming a distraction from the point of my original post. My argument remains: making blanket statements about the entire Democratic party based on the actions of one person (Sandy Berger) is idiotic, just as idiotic as making blanket statements about the entire Republican Party based on the actions of one person (Oliver North). Got it?!?
Democrats are not to be trusted. The hate America leftist agenda will be stuffed down your throat like it or not. Read my new post on the democrats latest ploy to control what you read and hear in the thread Canada: Fox News: No, Al Jazeera yes!
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 11:56 AM
 
Originally posted by Orion27:
Democrats are not to be trusted. The hate America leftist agenda will be stuffed down your throat like it or not. Read my new post on the democrats latest ploy to control what you read and hear in the thread Canada: Fox News: No, Al Jazeera yes!
Nevermind. There is no possibility of having a rational, logical argument with you.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Y3a
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 11:59 AM
 
<< Excusing Oliver North's acts while frothing at the mouth over Sandy Berger's acts leaves neither one of you with a logical basis on which to form your arguments >>

Opinions stated as fact cloud your judgment, and call into question your use of "logic"

Obviously the whole Ollie North thing is differnt than the whole Sandy Berger thing.

MOTIVE for one. What was Ollie doing? Selling arms. Honorable, clever scheme.

What was Sandy doing? Stealing and distroying documents he snuck out of the archives in his socks. sneaky lying dishonorable act. Clinton is laughing??? Like he did in Africa with the cigars and bongo's??
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 12:02 PM
 
Originally posted by Y3a:
<< Excusing Oliver North's acts while frothing at the mouth over Sandy Berger's acts leaves neither one of you with a logical basis on which to form your arguments >>

Opinions stated as fact cloud your judgment, and call into question your use of "logic"

Obviously the whole Ollie North thing is differnt than the whole Sandy Berger thing.

MOTIVE for one. What was Ollie doing? Selling arms. Honorable, clever scheme.

What was Sandy doing? Stealing and distroying documents he snuck out of the archives in his socks. sneaky lying dishonorable act. Clinton is laughing??? Like he did in Africa with the cigars and bongo's??
Nevermind. There is no possibility of having a rational, logical argument with you.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 12:08 PM
 
Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Nevermind. There is no possibility of having a rational, logical argument with you.
What's your point? have you given me one logical reason to trust the Democrats with national security? Help me here. I'm willing to listen but their track record in abysmal.
My feeling on the Sandy Berger thing is that the Washington establishment wants nothing to do with John Kerry and the people he is courting.
     
Dale Sorel
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: With my kitties!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 02:00 PM
 
Gosh, leave poor ol' President Clinton alone. He's trying to sell a couple of books
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 02:24 PM
 
"Third rate burglary."

Berger either made an innocent mistake for which he should be dressed down for (he should know better), or he was stealing top secret information.

The facts are not all known yet. But what is known is:

1. Berger made this "mistake" on more than one trip to the Archives.
2. Usually documents don't "accidentally" end up in one's socks.

There could be a number of reasons he would pilfer these docs:

1. He's angling for a book deal: See Dick Clark (not the bandstand guy.)
2. He and/or the Clinton Administration have something to hide and he was sent to hide it.
3. He was taking the documents to share information with John Kerry.
4. Any combination of the above 3.

As for the "timing" thing. Why would Republicans release the info now? Why not in October (like around the same time Democrats leaked the "DUI" story in 2000.)

If Democrats/Sandy Burglar are upset about the timing, the only person to blame is Sandy Berger. He has known he was under investigation for months. He could have very easy held a press conference to time it himself. He controlled the timing.
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
Dakar
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pretentiously Retired.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 02:26 PM
 
Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
"Third rate burglary."

Berger either made an innocent mistake for which he should be dressed down for (he should know better), or he was stealing top secret information.
I don't think it's an innocent mistake if you know that you have to hide it in your socks to get it out of there.
     
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 02:40 PM
 
Originally posted by Dakar:
I don't think it's an innocent mistake if you know that you have to hide it in your socks to get it out of there.
Berger was sent on a mission. He is an associate of Clinton and an major player in the Kerry campaign. The motive is still unclear but as former Director of the NSA, this is very troubling. Kerry will try to portray Berger's relationship as "informal" but that's a fu..'ing lie. Clinton destroys all he touches. Why the Democrats have allowed him to hijack the party is beyond comprehension. Hillary is just as nefarious in here schemes. The whole thing smells like a Clinton operation. Kerry is doomed. The Clinton-Berger slime will stick to everything Democrat and it will take a long long time to get the stink out.
     
Dakar
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pretentiously Retired.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 02:44 PM
 
Originally posted by Orion27:
Berger was sent on a mission. He is an associate of Clinton and an major player in the Kerry campaign. The motive is still unclear but as former Director of the NSA, this is very troubling. Kerry will try to portray Berger's relationship as "informal" but that's a fu..'ing lie. Clinton destroys all he touches. Why the Democrats have allowed him to hijack the party is beyond comprehension. Hillary is just as nefarious in here schemes. The whole thing smells like a Clinton operation. Kerry is doomed. The Clinton-Berger slime will stick to everything Democrat and it will take a long long time to get the stink out.
I suppose this balances out some of the conspiracy theorists on the left.

Care for a tin-foil hat?
     
slow moe
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 02:46 PM
 
Sandy Berger has been John Kerry's foreign policy adviser for months.
Lysdexics have more fnu.
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 03:02 PM
 
Having admitted to taking documents, I think it's safe to say that Berger's career is over. Which can only mean one thing: his own talk show.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 03:02 PM
 
He should be prosecuted if he intentionally took classified documents/notes. I see a couple of different possible motives:

1. To hide something embarrassing. But that's pretty tough, since these were copies. I suppose he could temporarily hide something, but the originals could always be found.
2. To help Kerry somehow. This really doesn't make any sense, but I mention it because Republicans have hinted at it. How in the world could any info like this help the Kerry campaign?
3. To help him prepare for his testimony in front of the commission. This is plausible, but not very nefarious.

Maybe he was just stuffing his pants to impress the ladies?
     
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 03:04 PM
 
Originally posted by Dakar:
I suppose this balances out some of the conspiracy theorists on the left.

Care for a tin-foil hat?
No. These are the facts as we know them. Berger was sent by Clinton to the Archives,
Berger stole documents, Berger was a major player in the Kerry campaign. I have ascribed to no conspiracy. Kerry could have been set up by Clinton. What the Berger Clinton quid pro quo is we do not know. Suffice it to say the only person who would benefit by this theft is Clinton.
     
Dakar
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pretentiously Retired.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 03:09 PM
 
Originally posted by Orion27:
No. These are the facts as we know them. Berger was sent by Clinton to the Archives,
Berger stole documents, Berger was a major player in the Kerry campaign. I have ascribed to no conspiracy. Kerry could have been set up by Clinton. What the Berger Clinton quid pro quo is we do not know. Suffice it to say the only person who would benefit by this theft is Clinton.
What you have right now is a bunch of circumstancial evidence and no real motive.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 03:13 PM
 
Originally posted by Orion27:
No. These are the facts as we know them. Berger was sent by Clinton to the Archives,
Berger stole documents, Berger was a major player in the Kerry campaign. I have ascribed to no conspiracy. Kerry could have been set up by Clinton. What the Berger Clinton quid pro quo is we do not know. Suffice it to say the only person who would benefit by this theft is Clinton.
We know that Clinton sent Berger to the archives? I thought he went there because he was going to testify before the 9/11 commission and he wanted to review the relevant documents?
     
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 03:16 PM
 
Originally posted by Dakar:
What you have right now is a bunch of circumstancial evidence and no real motive.
No. We have witnesses to the crime and a perp who tried to make a deal with the Feds before this all became public. The Feds said no deal. ( same prosecutor as Martha Stewart).
No. What we don't have is a motive and the documents stolen made public.
     
slow moe
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 03:23 PM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
He should be prosecuted if he intentionally took classified documents/notes. I see a couple of different possible motives:

1. To hide something embarrassing. But that's pretty tough, since these were copies. I suppose he could temporarily hide something, but the originals could always be found.
2. To help Kerry somehow. This really doesn't make any sense, but I mention it because Republicans have hinted at it. How in the world could any info like this help the Kerry campaign?
3. To help him prepare for his testimony in front of the commission. This is plausible, but not very nefarious.

Maybe he was just stuffing his pants to impress the ladies?
Sandy Berger�s Heavy Lifting by Byron York.

First, Berger has reportedly conceded that he knowingly hid his handwritten notes in his jacket and pants in order to sneak them out of the Archives. Any notes made from classified material have to be cleared before they can be removed from the Archives � a common method of safeguarding classified information � and Berger's admission that he hid the notes in his clothing is a clear sign of intent to conceal his actions.


Second, although Berger said he reviewed thousands of pages, he apparently homed in on a single document: the so-called "after-action report" on the Clinton administration's handling of the millennium plot of 1999/2000. Berger is said to have taken multiple copies of the same paper. He is also said to have taken those copies on at least two different days. There have been no reports that he took any other documents, which suggests that his choice of papers was quite specific, and not the result of simple carelessness.


Third, it appears that Berger's "inadvertent" actions clearly aroused the suspicion of the professional staff at the Archives. Staff members there are said to have seen Berger concealing the papers; they became so concerned that they set up what was in effect a small sting operation to catch him. And sure enough, Berger took some more. Those witnesses went to their superiors, who ultimately went to the Justice Department. (There was no surveillance camera in the room in which Berger worked with the documents, meaning there is no videotape record of the incidents.)


The documents Berger took � each copy of the millennium report is said to be in the range of 15 to 30 pages � were highly secret. They were classified at what is known as the "code word" level, which is the government's highest tier of secrecy. Any person who is authorized to remove such documents from a special secure room is required to do so in a locked case that is handcuffed to his or her wrist.


It is not clear why Berger would focus solely on the millennium-plot report. But it is clear that the report has been the object of intense discussions during the September 11 investigation.


The report was the result of a review done by Richard Clarke, then the White House counterterrorism chief, of efforts by the Clinton administration to stop terrorist plots at the turn of the year 2000. At several points in the September 11 commission hearings, Democrats pointed to the millennium case as an example of how a proper counterterrorism program should be run. But sources say the report suggests just the opposite. Clarke apparently concluded that the millennium plot was foiled by luck � a border agent in Washington State who happened to notice a nervous, sweating man who turned out to have explosives in his car � and not by the Clinton administration's savvy anti-terrorism work. The report also contains a number of recommendations to lessen the nation's vulnerability to terrorism, but few were actually implemented.


The after-action review became the topic of public discussion in April when Attorney General John Ashcroft mentioned it in his public testimony before the September 11 commission. "This millennium after-action review declares that the United States barely missed major terrorist attacks in 1999 and cites luck as playing a major role," Ashcroft testified. "It is clear from the review that actions taken in the millennium period should not be the operating model for the U.S. government."


In May, a government official told National Review Online that the report contains a "scathing indictment of the last administration's actions." The source said the report portrayed the Clinton administration's actions as "exactly how things shouldn't be run." In addition, Clarke was highly critical of the handling of the millennium plot in his book, Against All Enemies.


It is not clear how many copies of the report exist. Nor is it clear why Berger was so focused on the document. If he simply wanted a copy, it seems that taking just one would have been sufficient. But it also seems that Berger should have known that he could not round up all the known copies of the document, since there were apparently other copies in other secure places. Whatever the case, the report was ultimately given to the September 11 Commission.
Leave it to the Clinton administration to turn librarians into special agents.
Lysdexics have more fnu.
     
Dakar
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pretentiously Retired.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 03:30 PM
 
Originally posted by Orion27:
No. We have witnesses to the crime and a perp who tried to make a deal with the Feds before this all became public.
So this automatically implicates Clinton, or Kerry, or Both?


Originally posted by Dakar:
What you have right now is ...no real motive.
Originally posted by Orion27:
No. What we don't have is a motive...
Way to disagree with me.

Originally posted by Orion27:
and the documents stolen made public
Those are your boys in office. Seems only fair considering the amount of documents they wouldn't declassify for the commission.
     
MindFad
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 03:40 PM
 
Why don't we call him the Reagan or Bush Sr. Admin? Didn't he serve under them, too? Or is it dirtier if we use Clinton?
     
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 03:47 PM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
We know that Clinton sent Berger to the archives? I thought he went there because he was going to testify before the 9/11 commission and he wanted to review the relevant documents?
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 03:52 PM
 
Originally posted by slow moe:
Sandy Berger�s Heavy Lifting by Byron York.
I have a copy of Clarke's "Against All Enemies," and I went back and read the section on the Millennium after-action report, which was apparently the docs Berger took. I don't agree with that article that Clarke was scathing in his book. He basically says that he made a series of recommendations, trying to get people to take al Qaeda more seriously, and that most of the recommendations were followed. He even mentions Berger and says that he personally got the Predator unmanned aircraft going over Afghanistan as a result of the repot. Clarke clearly praises Berger as being serious and knowledgeable about terrorism and al Qaeda throughout the book.

But maybe there was something critical in that report, and Berger was trying to steal it so no one else would have it (keeping in mind that these were copies of the docs). Or he could have taken something in order to help prepare for his testimony.
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 05:24 PM
 
It is safe to say, however, that this is the first time that anyone, anywhere, has ever wondered about the contents of Sandy Berger's pants.
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
Invictus
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Beyond this place of wrath and tears.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 05:56 PM
 
If anything intentionally wrong was done in this case. which hasn't been proven. it only shows that Republicans don't have a monopoly.
< PREVIOUS NEXT >
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 06:11 PM
 
Losing and misplacing memos and billing records is a trademark of Democrats.

Don't try to infer that Republicans have ever done it.

Remember the White House cleaning lady that found the Rose Law firm billing records that Hillary "misplaced"?

What about the deeds and records relating to the Clinton's real estate scam, Casa Grande? Where did those end up? In a Democrat's socks, no doubt.
     
Invictus
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Beyond this place of wrath and tears.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 06:25 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Losing and misplacing memos and billing records is a trademark of Democrats.

Don't try to infer that Republicans have ever done it.
Yes, you are right. All Republican politicians and their aides are all honest.

Your post is a 'SMACKDOWN'

< PREVIOUS NEXT >
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 06:28 PM
 
um. yeah. your superior intellect is evident.
     
Invictus
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Beyond this place of wrath and tears.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 06:54 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
um. yeah. your superior intellect is evident.
Thank you. Coming from you that means a lot. By the way...good to see a coherent post for once. You may have two cookies.
< PREVIOUS NEXT >
     
slow moe
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2004, 06:58 PM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
I have a copy of Clarke's "Against All Enemies," and I went back and read the section on the Millennium after-action report, which was apparently the docs Berger took. I don't agree with that article that Clarke was scathing in his book. He basically says that he made a series of recommendations, trying to get people to take al Qaeda more seriously, and that most of the recommendations were followed. He even mentions Berger and says that he personally got the Predator unmanned aircraft going over Afghanistan as a result of the repot. Clarke clearly praises Berger as being serious and knowledgeable about terrorism and al Qaeda throughout the book.

But maybe there was something critical in that report, and Berger was trying to steal it so no one else would have it (keeping in mind that these were copies of the docs). Or he could have taken something in order to help prepare for his testimony.
The article didn't say Clarke was scathing, it said in his book he was highly critical of the handling of the millennium plot.

It was a government offical that said the report contains a "scathing indictment of the last administration's actions."

In May, a government official told National Review Online that the report contains a "scathing indictment of the last administration's actions." The source said the report portrayed the Clinton administration's actions as "exactly how things shouldn't be run." In addition, Clarke was highly critical of the handling of the millennium plot in his book, Against All Enemies.
I want to read this report on the millennium plot. Make it public. dammit.
Lysdexics have more fnu.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:53 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,