What do the Clintons keep hiding?

Sandy Berger, Clinton’s Nat’l Security Adviser (same position as Condi Rice holds now) was caught stealing and destroying memos related to al Qaeda and terror threats surrounding the Dec. 31 1999 New Year’s Eve celebrations.

story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … rger_probe

[quote]Clinton Adviser Probed Over Terror Memos

By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - 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.

“When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded,” [Berger] said.

The officials said the missing documents were highly classified, and included critical assessments about the Clinton administration’s handling of the millennium terror threats as well as identification of America’s terror vulnerabilities at airports to sea ports.

David Gergen, who was an adviser to Clinton and worked with Berger for a time in the White House, said Tuesday, “I think it’s more innocent than it looks.” [/quote]

Well, gee, David, that wouldn’t be too fucking hard. But why do you think that? Any reason, or just wishful thinking?? It looks like Berger is trying to cover up Clinton’s failings. I wonder if it has any relation to Kerry’s campaign?

[quote]Breuer said the Archives staff first raised concerns with Berger during an Oct. 2 review of documents that at least one copy of the post-millennium report he had reviewed earlier was missing. Berger was given a second copy that day, Breuer said.

Officials familiar with the investigation said Archive staff specially marked the documents and when the new copy and others disappeared, Archive officials called Clinton attorney Bruce Lindsey to raise concerns. [/quote]

So, in short, Berger was trying to steal and destroy EVERY copy of that document.

What are these scumbag weasels trying to hide??

The release of the Berger story now is pure MOR (Mark of Rove). Others share this view with me, btw.

Since the National Archives began investigating this in October, 2003, referred it to the FBI in January, 2004, yet the FBI has yet to inverview Berger while it’s being released as news at this time, it can only mean that its release by Ashcroft’s DoJ now is partisan. This is hardly the first time Ashcroft has thrown his boss a bone, either.

That is not the same as concluding that Berger has nothing to answer for. If he’s guilty of stealing documents from the NA, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Likely, however, this ‘news’ was designed to distract from the impending 9/11 Panel report, which is thought to contain harsh judgments of the Bush administration, and is due to be released Thursday.

IOW, pure MOR.

[quote=“MaPoSquid”]Sandy Berger, Clinton’s Nat’l Security Adviser (same position as Condi Rice holds now) was caught stealing and destroying memos related to al Qaeda and terror threats surrounding the Dec. 31 1999 New Year’s Eve celebrations.

story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … rger_probe

[quote]Clinton Adviser Probed Over Terror Memos

By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - 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.

“When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded,” [Berger] said.

The officials said the missing documents were highly classified, and included critical assessments about the Clinton administration’s handling of the millennium terror threats as well as identification of America’s terror vulnerabilities at airports to sea ports.

David Gergen, who was an adviser to Clinton and worked with Berger for a time in the White House, said Tuesday, “I think it’s more innocent than it looks.” [/quote]

Well, gee, David, that wouldn’t be too fucking hard. But why do you think that? Any reason, or just wishful thinking?? It looks like Berger is trying to cover up Clinton’s failings. I wonder if it has any relation to Kerry’s campaign?

[quote]Breuer said the Archives staff first raised concerns with Berger during an Oct. 2 review of documents that at least one copy of the post-millennium report he had reviewed earlier was missing. Berger was given a second copy that day, Breuer said.

Officials familiar with the investigation said Archive staff specially marked the documents and when the new copy and others disappeared, Archive officials called Clinton attorney Bruce Lindsey to raise concerns. [/quote]

So, in short, Berger was trying to steal and destroy EVERY copy of that document.

What are these scumbag weasels trying to hide??[/quote]

Squid,

Why put the blame on the Clintons? First of all, why put the blame on anyone at this time as it has not been proven that Berger did anything wrong. Despite your comments that “Berger was trying to steal and destroy EVERY copy of that document,” there is no proof that this is true.
Why not give investigators a chance to conduct a complete investigation into what really happened before saying Berger is guilty? Why jump to conclusions this early in the investigation?

Neo-con Bush acollytes are just getting nasty and desperate, that’s all.

Sad sad people. Sad.

The CIA planted the “missing” documents to better Bush’s chance for reelection.

Not likely.

[quote]Berger’s home and office were searched earlier this year by FBI (news - web sites) agents armed with warrants. 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.

[color=red]Berger[/color] and his lawyer [color=red]said[/color] Monday night [color=red]he knowingly removed handwritten notes he had taken from classified anti-terror documents he reviewed at the National Archives by sticking them in his jacket and pants[/color]. He also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio, they said.[/quote]

Just watched Aaron Brown interview David Gergen on CNN. According to Gergen, Berger did nothing to damage national security. Yes, he made a mistake and took photocopies of certain documents relating to terrorism from when he was Clinton’s national security advisor. However, these were copies of secondary copies and the originals were still under lock and key. Gergem admitting to making the same mistake on many occassions. Therefore, I would say it was sloppy on Berger’s part, but not deceptive. I trust Gergen’s judgement on this one.

opinionjournal.com/editorial … =110005380

[b]
Berger on the ‘Wall’

The election debate behind the documents-in-pants caper. [/b]

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

We’ll grant that visions of a former National Security Adviser stuffing classified documents down his trousers or socks makes for good copy. But count us more interested in learning what’s in the documents themselves than in where on his person Sandy Berger may have put them when he was sneaking them out of the National Archives.

For the evidence suggests that the missing material cuts to the heart of the choice offered in this election: Whether America treats terrorism as a problem of law enforcement or an act of war.

If it’s all as innocent as Mr. Berger’s friends are saying, there’s no reason not to make them public. But there are good reasons for questioning Mr. Berger’s dog-ate-my-homework explanation. To begin with, he was not simply preparing for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. He was the point man for the Clinton Administration, reviewing and selecting the documents to be turned over to the Commission.

Written by Richard Clarke for the NSC, the key document was called the Millennium After-Action Review because it dealt with al Qaeda attacks timed for the eve of the Millennium celebrations.

it would explain why Mr. Berger’s “inadvertent” actions seemed to zero in on the various drafts of this review. Sources tell us that Archives staff noticed documents missing after one of Mr. Berger’s visits. After gently raising the issue with him, they were shocked to have him return other documents they hadn’t even noticed missing. The result was that the next time Mr. Berger went to the Archives, the documents he was given were all marked.

Mr. Berger attributes the disappearance of this classified information to the kind of “sloppiness” that comes from reviewing “thousands of pages of documents.” But it strikes us as amazing that mere sloppiness could account for how Mr. Berger seized on the same memo during two different visits.

We’re not interested in rehashing what the Clinton Administration or even Mr. Berger did or didn’t do vis-a-vis the al Qaeda threat pre-9/11. Nor are we much interested about Mr. Berger’s troubles with the law. What does interest us is what this memo might tell us about how America should respond to terror.

Given Mr. Berger’s role (until he resigned yesterday) as a Kerry adviser, surely this is something worth debating. And if the missing memos say what Mr. Ashcroft has hinted they do, we can well understand why Mr. Berger would want to keep them in his trousers during a crucial election year.

Completely unrelated to national security documents, but am I the only one who has ever noticed that Sandy Berger makes Bush sound like Shakespeare? Berger can’t finish half a sentence without injecting an “uh.” Half of the words uttered from his mouth are “uh.” I found his inability to form coherent speech an embarrassment. At least Bush can fake it a bit. Berger couldn’t announce a nuclear war without stuttering or using the word “uh.”

[quote=“MaPoSquid cited OpinionJournal which”][b]
Berger on the ‘Wall’
…We’re not interested in rehashing what the Clinton Administration or even Mr. Berger did or didn’t do vis-a-vis the al Qaeda threat pre-9/11…[/quote]

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

[quote=“New York Times”]
G.O.P. Blames Clinton for Intelligence Failures
[/b]
By PHILIP SHENON

Published: July 21, 2004

WASHINGTON, July 20 - The political haggling over the conclusions of the Sept. 11 commission began in earnest on Tuesday, with the leaders of the commission traveling to Capitol Hill for the first of a series of private briefings for members of Congress about the panel’s final report…

After their briefing, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and other House Republican leaders held a news conference at which they suggested that the report, which is scheduled to be made public on Thursday, would show that intelligence and law enforcement failures before the Sept. 11 attacks were more the responsibility of the Clinton administration than of the Bush administration.

nytimes.com/2004/07/21/polit … el.html?hp[/quote]

Bush’s GOP in action.

Who said US national security isn’t subject to politics as usual? :unamused:

[quote=“Kevin Drum”]THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW…Tom Davis is the Republican chairman of the House Government Reform Committee. Among other things, this means he’s the point man for congressional investigations of governmental misdeeds.

Here is Tom Davis on his plans to open an investigation into the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, which was first exposed by David Corn on July 16, 2003:[ul]July 17, 2003: Nothing.

October 3, 2003: “I know [John] Ashcroft very well, and I’m sure he’ll go by the book.” Um, OK. Nonetheless, he also said he was “gearing up” to lead an investigation of the matter. “It’s our obligation to do so. This is something we can’t tolerate.”

January 23, 2004: “If they don’t find it, we will. It will be looked at and second-guessed. It’s a troubling and serious violation.” But we’ll still wait on gearing up that investigation.

July 21, 2004: Still gearing up. No investigation yet.[/ul]
Two days ago, on July 19, 2004, AP reported that former NSA Sandy Berger had removed some classified documents from the National Archives and is the subject of an active FBI investigation. How does Davis feel about this?
[ul]July 21, 2004: Congress has “a constitutional responsibility to find out what happened and why. At best, we’re looking at tremendously irresponsible handling of highly classified information.” An investigation is underway.[/ul]
Hey! Tom Davis can move mighty quickly when he puts his mind to it! I wonder what the difference between these two cases is?

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, who has been equally sanguine about the FBI’s ability to investigate the Plame case, is also deeply concerned.

washingtonmonthly.com/archiv … 004350.php[/quote]