Berger is a thief!

[Sparrowhawk]

Former national security adviser Sandy Berger has said, he was sloppy in what he did, that he inadvertently removed “HUNDREDS” of pages of material, that it was an honest mistake. Others including the majority of newspapers have used words other then thievery to describe or condemn his actions.

Some complaint about the timing of the release of this information and feel sorry for Kerry because he lost his top foreign advisor.

Enough is enough, its time for these leaders to be held responsible and criminal charges filed against this man, whose actions can be related to helping terrorist commit acts against our nation. He is a lawyer and should be disbarred.
What about the pages, he accidentally discarded?

Even our local newspaper the Press Enterprise, which is one of the most liberal newspapers in Southern California next to the LA Times, seems to see that it’s just too much. In its editorial section today, the writer wrote;

“Senior Democrats are downplaying the story, suggesting a cavalier attitude about national security that denigrates the losses Americans suffered in the most horrific attacks on our soil since Pearl Harbor.”

Maybe some lights are beginning to go on and silence can no longer be tolerated even by the left wing party.

Kerry is now saying if he is elected, Burger could have a place in his administration!
A thief! What kind of commander in chief is more loyal to his friends then to the nation he wants to be president over?

[thedrifter]

Cook

Do you think some of those classified documents, where used for Kerry, to help him out for the election?

Ellie

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040720/D83U6TIO0.html

[thedrifter]

Did Sandy Berger “Fry” Flight 800 Records?
July 22, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tom Kovach

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Men’s News Daily exclusive

During the 1980s, renowned radio commentator Paul Harvey said something that I’ve quoted often to my friends. Opining about various wars and upheavals — in the Middle East, Central and South America, Northern Ireland, and Cambodia — Harvey said, “Sometimes you have to laugh, just to keep from crying.” During this election year — while the country is at war with shadowy terrorist networks, both here and abroad — Paul Harvey’s advice seems especially appropriate. Americans have already come up with various combinations of “Berger & Ketchup” to describe the relationship between former Clinton Administration national-security advisor Sandy Berger and presidential candidate Senator John Kerry (who is married to ketchup-fortune heiress Teresa Heinz-Kerry). Adding to that, I will say that Berger’s recently-abdicated title as an “informal advisor” to the Kerry campaign is starting to look a lot like the “unofficial spokesman” on the Wendy’s Hamburgers TV commercials. (Oddly, the Wendy’s theme has shown up in another of my articles about the Flight 800 mystery.)

The recent revelation by Sandy Berger that he removed highly-classified documents from the National Archives, and then “lost” them, has numerous implications during this election season. Berger was the national-security advisor to Bill Clinton, who is the most scandal-laden president in US history. Flight 800 was destroyed in mid-air during the 1996 re-election campaign of Bill Clinton. Another high-level Clinton insider — former White House chief of staff, turned ABC-TV news analyst, George Stephanopoulos — referred to the bombing of Flight 800 on the air. With that remark — and his associated description of being inside the “other situation room” in the White House at the time of the Flight 800 disaster — a direct link was made between Clinton and Flight 800. This link was, of course, overlooked by the “mainstream” news media.

So, what does this link between Bill Clinton and Flight 800 have to do with the current John Kerry presidential campaign? Well, perhaps nothing, except thatJohn Kerry also referred to Flight 800 as a terrorist incident in a televised interview. The problem is that, with the upcoming release of the final report of the “9-11” Commission, the general public will have the opportunity to refresh their memory about the link between Flight 800 and terrorism. Having spent years on the Senate Intelligence Committee, it is now impossible for Kerry to deny that he had access to information about any link between Flight 800 and terrorist acts. Therefore, if such a link is proven, then a line can be drawn between the downing of Flight 800 in 1996 and the “9-11” attacks in 2001. Again, because of his committee experience and his televised interview, Kerry cannot now distance himself from his comments about “9-11”.

Follow along: if a link is made in the public’s mind between terrorism, Flight 800, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and “9-11”, then what is the logical result? Surely, donations to the Democratic Party and to the Kerry campaign would dry up rapidly. Therefore, it is imperative to the Kerry campaign to destroy evidence of such a link. Enter: Sandy Berger. He is a person that had intimate knowledge of high-level decisions about terrorism, and access to the records of those decisions. Now, it is public knowledge that Berger has “lost” some of those documents. Were the “lost” documents related to Flight 800? The only person that knows hasn’t talked.

What is known is that there are numerous pieces of evidence that point to the involvement of a missile in the TWA Flight 800 disaster. What is known is that President Clinton issued an executive order that was targeted to silence the Navy SEALs that were on scene at the Flight 800 debris field in the Atlantic Ocean. What is known is that the FBI was very embarrassed when news of Bureau interest in missile technology became public. (Read the portion about the Teledyne fax to Dee Muma.) What is known is that the Navy SEALs are following the Flight 800 story. What is known is that there were other terrorist plots on US soil between 1996 and 2001. What is known is that the Clinton Administration ignored warnings about Operation Bojinka, and thus paved the way for the “9-11” attacks. What is known is that Clinton wanted to cover his tracks about the probable Bojinka—“9-11” link. What is known is that Berger is a close ally of both Clinton and Kerry. What is known is that Berger removed highly-classified documents from the National Archives. What is known is that those documents were related to information examined by the 9-11 Commission about the extent of terrorist operations in America prior to 11 September 2001. (operations that apparently continue today) What is known is that Bill Clinton and his ilk will do anything to gain and retain political power. And, just recently, it became known that Operation Iraqi Freedom had more justification than Kerry has admitted.

As this article is being written, a Federal appeals court is in session in Massachusetts. The topic is the secrecy over autopsy reports of the Flight 800 crash victims. As I reported last week, independent researcher and electrical engineer Graeme Sephton — vice-president of FIRO, and founding president of FOIAC — is winning so far in his lawsuit against the FBI. The suit is trying to force the Bureau to release autopsy reports, which allegedly contain proof of missile shrapnel in the bodies of Flight 800 victims. If the lawsuit is successful, then the official Clinton Administration story about Flight 800 will be blown to bits.

The political explosion, however, will not only affect the elusive “Clinton legacy”. The fireball would also burn up the chances of John Kerry to become elected as President of the United States. And, with that would come the destruction of any potential pardons of criminal charges for culpability in a Flight 800 cover-up. And, the shrapnel from this explosion would also shred the hopes of other Democratic Party candidates, especially in Massachusetts. The timing of Berger’s revelation that he “lost” valuable documents — coming in between last week’s article about the lawsuit, and today’s court hearing — seems quite suspicious. And, the fact that the hearing is being held in Kerry’s home state certainly adds fuel to the speculation — especially considering that a Fox-TV news item mentioned the lawsuit on the Flight 800 anniversary last Saturday. It appears to me that Berger’s revelations about illegal activity are designed to take heat off Kerry, in the same way that Janet Reno’s raid on the compound outside Waco seemed timed to take media attention away from the indictment of Hillary Clinton.

Because of my own experience in the Air Force, I know that it might never be possible to determine which documents disappeared at the hands of Sandy Berger. When documents reach a certain level of classification, even the table of contents listing the documents is classified. Therefore, only people with that level of clearance, and a specific “need to know”, may be granted access to even the table of contents. Most members of the public do not realize that there are actually several layers of classification above Top Secret. If the Clinton White House did, in fact, engage in a cover-up of the shoot-down of Flight 800, then the most likely “classification authority” would have been Sandy Berger. He would have been under great incentive to hide the proof under the highest classification possible. Thus, even proof that such documents ever existed would be difficult to access.

Were the missing documents shredded, and/or burned? If so, then did Berger “fry” any records of the truth about the downing of Flight 800? (I had to make a joke about it, because, “Sometimes, you have to laugh, just to keep from crying.”)

Tom Kovach

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...vach072204.htm


Ellie

[MillRatUSMC]

"And the truth shall set thee free!"
What might the "truth" be in this instant?
Did Sandy Berger destroy those documents?
He has admit to taking and then they disappeared.
Woulda , Coulda, Shoulda all seem appropriate in this instant.
Who does it favor on release of this partial information?
"And the truth shall set thee free!"
If truth is the first to die in war,
What might be second?
Liar, Liar, pants on fire!
Pray God, where did I hear that recently?

Semper Fidelis/Semper Fi
Ricardo

[Rat Patrol]

Once again this piece of news reveals that if the connection is made. And

Kerry,”
Having spent years on the Senate Intelligence Committee, it is now impossible for Kerry to deny that he had access to information about any link between Flight 800 and terrorist acts."

This information not only justifies us going after Iraq, but makes blows Kerry out of the water.

There is going to be an outcry and this "evil" empire in our midst has got to be exposed.

This is very irritating and makes Clinton and Kerry as guilty of a conspiracy as the terrorist that struck us on 9-11.

[Sparrowhawk]

Publication:The New York Sun; Date:Jul 23, 2004; Section:Editorial & Opinion; Page:10


The Boldness of the President

Reading the report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, we couldn’t help thinking of Justice Scalia’s great dissent in Morrison v. Olson. It’s the case in which the Supreme Court upheld the idea of an independent prosecutor. Justice Scalia warned of the danger that unleashing an uncontrollable prosecutor against a president could shake his courage. “Perhaps the boldness of the President himself will not be affected — though I am not so sure,” he warned.

Well, look now to what the 9/11 report has to say about the man to whom President Clinton, under attack by an independent counsel,delegated so much in respect of national security, Samuel “Sandy” Berger. The report cites a 1998 meeting between Mr. Berger and the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, at which Mr. Tenet presented a plan to capture Osama bin Laden.

“In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted,” the report says, citing a May 1, 1998, Central Intelligence Agency memo summarizing the weekly meeting between Messrs. Berger and Tenet.

In June of 1999, another plan for action against Mr. bin Laden was on the table. The potential target was a Qaeda terrorist camp in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms. The commission report released yesterday cites Mr. Berger’s “handwritten notes on the meeting paper” referring to “the presence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60-65 casualties.”According to the Berger notes, “if he responds, we’re blamed.”

On December 4, 1999, the National Security Council’s counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, sent Mr. Berger a memo suggesting a strike in the last week of 1999 against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Reports the commission: “In the margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, ‘no.’ ”

In August of 2000, Mr. Berger was presented with another possible plan for attacking Mr. bin Laden.This time, the plan would be based on aerial surveillance from a “Predator” drone. Reports the commission: “In the memo’s margin,Berger wrote that before considering action, ‘I will want more than verified location: we will need, at least, data on pattern of movements to provide some assurance he will remain in place.’ ”

In other words, according to the commission report, Mr. Berger was presented with plans to take action against the threat of Al Qaeda four separate times — Spring 1998, June 1999, December 1999, and August 2000. Each time, Mr. Berger was an obstacle to action. Had he been a little less reluctant to act, a little more open to taking pre-emptive action, maybe the 2,973 killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks would be alive today.

It really doesn’t matter now what was in the documents from the National Archives that Mr. Berger says he inadvertently misplaced. The evidence in the commission’s report yesterday is more than enough to embarrass him thoroughly.He is a hardworking, warm man with a wonderful family, but his background as a trade lawyer and his dovish, legalistic and political instincts made him, in retrospect,the tragically wrong man to be making national security decisions for America in wartime.That Senator Kerry had Mr. Berger as a campaign foreign policy adviser even before the archives scandal is enough to raise doubts about the senator’s judgment.

Neither Mr.Berger nor any other American is to blame for the deaths of Americans on September 11, 2001. The moral fault lies only with the terrorists, not with the victims.With the war still on,one can’t help but to ponder who might best defend the country going forward, and how.

The commission’s report contains plenty of other valuable information. Many of the recommendations — to move operations functions to the Department of Defense from the CIA, to speed the transition between administrations so that key defense positions are not left vacant, to stress “widespread political participation”in the Arab and Muslim world,to declassify the intelligence budget, to provide a written national security transition handover memo when administrations change — make sense.

Other aspects of the report, including the absence of serious recommendations for dealing with the terrorist threats from Syria or Iran, are harder to understand. The report is being taken seriously for its political ramifications for the Bush administration and for its policy recommendations. But perhaps its greatest value is

as a history — more, a sad epitaph — of the Clinton-Berger administration.

Why was it Mr. Berger rather than President Clinton himself making all these judgment calls? As the report puts it, these decisions “were made by the Clinton administration under extremely difficult domestic political circumstances.Opponents were seeking the president’s impeachment.”

One can blame the special prosecutor law or Mr. Clinton for agreeing to name a special prosecutor, or one can blame the underlying reckless behavior by Mr. Clinton that got him into the “difficult domestic political circumstances.” Or one can blame the Republican Congress. No matter what one’s view of the underlying merits, it is hard to deny that one of the costs to the country was a preoccupied president.There’s no guarantee that, in the absence of the scandal and the prosecutor, Mr. Clinton would have acted against Mr. bin Laden. But the chances would have been at least somewhat increased, and it would have been Mr. Clinton rather than Mr. Berger making the call.

The boldness of the president, in Justice Scalia’s phrase,had been lost,and the man left in charge, Mr. Berger, was not up to it. When we think of the repairs that need to be made in the coming months, it is of this: The need to carry on our national politics with an eye to protecting the boldness of our leaders and particularly in a time of war. It is something to think about amid one of the bitterest, most adhominem political seasons in the history of the Republic.

[MAJMike]

What a bunch of right wing CRAP! Jeez...do you people really believe this? Do you not read / watch objective reports on this? Do you really let these idiots who wrote the above do your thinking for you?

This is why we have become a nation of US vs. THEM.

[Super Dave]

Mr. Berger should be stripped of ALL security clearances immediately and never be allowed to have another one. He has admitted to taking the documents and his notes out of the secure room.

[Sparrowhawk]

Originally posted by MAJMike
What a bunch of right wing CRAP! Jeez...do you people really believe this? Do you not read / watch objective reports on this? Do you really let these idiots who wrote the above do your thinking for you?

This is why we have become a nation of US vs. THEM.

From The 9-11 Commission Report.


"On June 25, at Clarke's request, Berger convened the Small Group in his office to discuss the alert, Bin Ladin's WMD programs, and his location. "Should we pre-empt by attacking UBL facilities?" Clarke urged Berger to ask his colleagues. 182 In his handwritten notes on the meeting paper, Berger jotted down the pres-ence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60Ð 65 casualties. Berger noted the possible "slight impact" on Bin Ladin and added, "if he responds, we're blamed." (page 140)


Richard Clarke interview (Jan. 12, 2004). In the margin next to Clarke's suggestion to attack al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote "no." (page 516)

The others are there as well, you can get a copy of it yourself and read it.

Clinton's cabinet was so wishy washy that Janet Reno discouraged striking at Bin Laden because she feared retailation from Bin laden's group.

How this one for you

From page 133 of the report.



On January 12, 1999, Clarke wrote Berger that the CIA's confidence in the tribals' reporting had increased. It was now higher than it had been on December 20. 133 In February 1999,Allen proposed flying a U-2 mission over Afghanistan to build a baseline of intelligence outside the areas where the tribals had cover-age.

Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible. He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin's having met with Iraqi officials, who "may have offered him asylum."

Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq.


If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be "vir-tually impossible" to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared. 134 Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight, but Clarke opposed even this.

It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and "Pak[ istan's] intel[ ligence service] is in bed with" Bin Ladin and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: "Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad." 135 Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad, Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight. Allen meanwhile had found other ways of getting the information he wanted. So the U-2 flight never occurred.

---

bunch of right wing CRAP?

It was written by the commissioners, that tried throughout the report to cover up for Clinton's weakness and blunders.... but its all there and the news agencies are reading it and not reporting it.

[Keldog]

If this had been some poor old low end of the totem pole Joe Sh** the Rag Man he would be in the cooler waiting things out. I guess this goes to prove that if you have rank or status and connections there's always a way to get around the system. No new news there! Only a complete idiot could manage to let all those documents magically compile in their brief case and forget to not put them back before leaving. He did it, he got caught, screw him!!

[snipowsky]

Just goes to show how much damage Bill Clinton really did to our country prior to him leaving office. Anymore I don't believe one word of anything our government has to say about 9/11 or Iraq. I think George W. Bush is an outstanding President who has his interests in the right places. He is for America, not against it like Bill Clinton!

And if we get another "Bill Clinton" in office, i.e. John Kerry... we are all super screwed. Back to lies in the White House and doing nothing to terrorists who attack our own soil, including United States embassies.

I think it's about time we take the gloves off and quit pussy footing around to appease the other side!

UNITED WE STAND - DIVIDED WE FALL!

I think we are on the path to falling straight on our faces! Too many people in our own government feel these very same terrorists should have rights. My question is why? Why give them any rights? They should be killed on the spot, no questions asked if they are truely a wanted terrorist and a enemy of the United States of America!