1803
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 381
|
Post by 1803 on Jul 20, 2004 11:45:48 GMT -5
Just when the Democrats are trying to convince the electorate that they are the ones who should be running the world, we learn that the former National Security Adviser, a man who has been on TV a lot for the Kerry campaign, and someone who could be a cabinet officer in a Kerry administration took classified documents out of the National Archives.
Of course they are saying this is an innocen mistake, but I ask you this, have you ever put something important in your socks? That is what he has admitted to doing. Does any clear thinking person honestly believe that he accidentally threw away two drafts of the report on the foiling of the Millenium Bombing plot? What a disgrace. Jump all over me if you want, but ask yourself what the press would be doing if Condi Rice was caught stuffing classified documents into her socks, and the potentially embarassing ones somehow disappeared.
If Kerry wants to win he is going to have to distance himself from all of the Clinton sleaze, but that is easier said than done.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 20, 2004 16:43:13 GMT -5
I agree with you 1803 on this issue and don't happen to be a fan of Sandy Berger as it relates to foreign policy and national security. I don't believe, however, that he'd be a cabinet officer in a Kerry administration. He would not be in charge of the DoD or State, although he may have been slated for Homeland Security.
I would much prefer someone like Gary Hart to any of the advisers in Kerry's current pool of advisers. He is an excellent thinker, and that is probably the most important thing IMO for anyone who is serving as an adviser to the President on foreign policy and national security issues.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 20, 2004 17:03:56 GMT -5
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jul 20, 2004 17:06:24 GMT -5
Yeah, but why didn't he do this a long time ago? And who's going to ask Kerry what he knew about this (not saying he did, but I think the question needs to be asked).
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 20, 2004 17:22:56 GMT -5
Yeah, but why didn't he do this a long time ago? And who's going to ask Kerry what he knew about this (not saying he did, but I think the question needs to be asked). Berger was an informal, unpaid adviser to Kerry and this matter pertains to Berger's service during a different Administration. So, I don't think the question merits a response from Kerry or anyone else at the campaign. If the allegations are true, they have everything to do with Sandy Berger and a decision that he would have made and very little to do with Kerry, if anything at all. What is more important right now IMO to the Presidential campaign is a resolution to the Plame Affair in which the name of a CIA officer, whose spouse had the temerity to disagree with Our Great Leader, was leaked to a conservative columnist, Robert Novak. How can we ensure the quality of our intelligence if there is an effort afoot to rid the intelligence services of dissenters or, more specifically, relatives of dissenters?
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Jul 20, 2004 17:41:34 GMT -5
Hmmm...I wonder where this leak came from. Certainly not from John Ashcroft's DOJ. After all, the president HATES leaks. Especially at times where it might conveniently distract folks from the 9/11 report.
Does anyone actually think Berger was being anything other than dumb and careless. I doubt any papers were heading to the Chinese somehow. He was NSA, for god's sake. Let the investigation take it's course, but I'd be blown away if there's much too this.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jul 20, 2004 18:00:01 GMT -5
I fail to see how stuffing classified documents down you pants is careless.
It's relevant to John Kerry's campaign because Berger is someone advising the campaign and seen as representing the campaign and, for the past 6 months has been under investigation for taking classified documents. If Kerry knew about this and kept it under wraps, then it says something about Kerry and his campaign.
And who cares how the information came about? Does that make Berger's acts any less stupid, arrogant and/or illegal?
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Jul 20, 2004 18:58:22 GMT -5
Berger has denied that he put anything in his pants or socks. That could well be a fabrication by the folks that leaked this in the first place. The facts of the case are far from established and very much in dispute. I understand why you're eager to believe the worst about anyone associated with the nefarious Clinton/Kerry axis, but let things play out a bit first. Again, I just can't imagine what terrible intentions Berger could possibly have. If he was selling secrets to Sadaam, I will recant and buy you a beer . Another thought occurs. Suppose he was trying to get a copy of a classified paper for the purpose of leaking it to the press for legitimate policy concerns (though obviously with a political bent.) Now, if the Kerry campaign was involved or had knowledge (either before or after the fact) it would be bad for Kerry. But what if he took it upon himself to do this a la Daniel Ellsberg? Getting something that he thought the public had to see? Ellsberg, to me, remains a hero despite the fact that he broke the law to steal and copy the Pentagon Papers from RAND (incidently, his autobiography is a fun read with lots of cool details.) The ends (exposing the decade of lies that had been coming out of the White House and the DoD on the state and prospects for the war) justified the means. Again, we have no clue what happened in this case (though you and I obviously have different guesses about what happened). But just something to think about. Why does it matter who leaked it? Well, aside from the hypocrisy of the administration on leaks generally (selective declassification and leaks of things to make their enemies look bad, vicious denunciations of anything that makes them look bad) the question of who wants this out there is obviously material to how much credibility to give the story and the facts that were given to reporters. And this has politics all over it.
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Jul 20, 2004 19:58:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 21, 2004 16:45:27 GMT -5
Berger has denied that he put anything in his pants or socks. That could well be a fabrication by the folks that leaked this in the first place. The facts of the case are far from established and very much in dispute. I understand why you're eager to believe the worst about anyone associated with the nefarious Clinton/Kerry axis, but let things play out a bit first. Again, I just can't imagine what terrible intentions Berger could possibly have. If he was selling secrets to Sadaam, I will recant and buy you a beer . Another thought occurs. Suppose he was trying to get a copy of a classified paper for the purpose of leaking it to the press for legitimate policy concerns (though obviously with a political bent.) Now, if the Kerry campaign was involved or had knowledge (either before or after the fact) it would be bad for Kerry. But what if he took it upon himself to do this a la Daniel Ellsberg? Getting something that he thought the public had to see? Ellsberg, to me, remains a hero despite the fact that he broke the law to steal and copy the Pentagon Papers from RAND (incidently, his autobiography is a fun read with lots of cool details.) The ends (exposing the decade of lies that had been coming out of the White House and the DoD on the state and prospects for the war) justified the means. Again, we have no clue what happened in this case (though you and I obviously have different guesses about what happened). But just something to think about. Why does it matter who leaked it? Well, aside from the hypocrisy of the administration on leaks generally (selective declassification and leaks of things to make their enemies look bad, vicious denunciations of anything that makes them look bad) the question of who wants this out there is obviously material to how much credibility to give the story and the facts that were given to reporters. And this has politics all over it. The good news is that Terry McAuliffe filed a FOIA request to find out if indeed this leak was strategically designed to distract from the 9/11 report. I must issue a disclaimer that this comes from the Drudge Report, which is accurate less than 45% of the time. www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jul 21, 2004 16:59:25 GMT -5
1: it looks like drudge has a copy of the FOIA letter, so I bet it's accurate
2: 45% is a pretty good rate for the scoops that Drudge puts out there. 95% of his content is a bunch of links to other stories any way.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jul 22, 2004 11:57:23 GMT -5
Everyone is sort of feeling their way around this story until more is known. Drip, drip, drip... Little by little, more information comes out on this story: "Berger also took "lots of bathroom breaks" that aroused some suspicion, the source added. It is standard procedure to constantly monitor anyone with a security clearance who examines the type of code-word classified files stored in the underground archives vault. The same archives monitors told the FBI Berger was observed stuffing his socks with handwritten notes about files he reviewed that were going to the Sept. 11 panel. It is prohibited to make notes about the secret files and leave with them without special approval." www.news-leader.com/today/0722-Guardsleft-138802.html
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jul 25, 2004 20:34:29 GMT -5
Steyn summs up what Berger has more or less admitted to.."By his own words, he's guilty of acts that any other American would go to jail for. He "inadvertently" shoved 30-page classified documents down his pants and then "inadvertently" lost them at home and then "inadvertently" returned to the National Archives to "inadvertently" take another draft of the same 30-page document and "inadvertently" lost that, too. He "inadvertently" made forbidden cell phone calls from the room with the classified documents, and he "inadvertently" took more suspicious bathroom breaks while in the Archives than that Syrian band took on that L.A. flight that was in the news last week. If the former national security adviser has an incontinence problem, that at least explains where he was during the '90s when Osama bin Laden was growing bolder and bolder on his watch.
I think this Berger story is one of the most under-reported stories of the last decade. Berger should go to jail.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jul 26, 2004 15:16:18 GMT -5
Now now, bin, I think you're going overboard. After all, Mr. Berger is just a very sloppy person -- after all, Bill Clinton saw his office and it was very messy so this must just be a big misunderstanding.
Plus, this is really about the timing of the leak, not the actual crime. This is all the Republican's fault.
|
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Jul 26, 2004 16:25:28 GMT -5
i think that sandy berger is not "above the law," and if he committed a crime, he should be punished. that being said, i think the facts of the case are way too hazy to be making definitive pronouncements about criminal liability.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jul 26, 2004 16:46:23 GMT -5
I don't blame you Z for thinking there is much we don't know because there has been very little coverage for so astounding a transaction by big wig. But really, what is hazy about it other than the coverage of it of late? He admits removing classified documents illegally and can't produce them now. He was the former NSA and Nat Archives employees (several) report he violated several important regulations- including the one about not shoving classified documents down you pants and detroying them later. There is one thing that is hazy- the speed with which the media decided this wasn't a juicy enough story to stick with it despite the quite astounding facts.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 26, 2004 17:11:35 GMT -5
I sure hope you don't want to hire a trial lawyer, let alone a plaintiff's attorney, for this one. That would be bad for small business and bad for America, wouldn't it? Or is this one of those convenient exceptions? The chairmen of the 9/11 Commission commented on the Berger matter over the weekend, which may shed some light into why this story is no longer newsworthy. "MR. RUSSERT: There are allegations against Mr. Berger that he took top-secret documents out of the National Archives. Were any of those documents that he took important to your investigation that you may have not seen? MR. HAMILTON: We've seen all those documents. MR. RUSSERT: All the drafts of the post-millennium, postmortem memos. MR. HAMILTON: We believe we've seen all the documents. The documents went from the archives to the White House to us. And we're quite sure that we've seen all of the documents in full. The chairman I think made not one but two inquiries of staff to make sure that we had all those documents, and we're very sure that the final report, the integrity of it, is not compromised in any way because of that distraction." www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5488345/So, there is no apparent attempt to inhibit the Commission's work. What is clear to me is that there does need to be an investigation. After all, this does deal with alleged mishandling of classified information and records of a Presidential administration. I think that is appropriate, and I am not surprised that Tom Delay's House decided to jump on it immediately. Speaking of mishandling classified material, I'd be curious to have your thoughts on why there has not been a report on the Valerie Plame Affair, which is a few years old now. It involves someone (a covert intelligence officer) who was outted in conjunction with her husband's opposition to the war against Iraq. The CIA officer apparently handled WMD matters, and the revelation of her identity may have affected pre-war intelligence and jeopardized the security of some of the most important officers in the CIA.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jul 26, 2004 20:39:31 GMT -5
A trial lawyer? I would think a federal prosecuter would be more like it.
You keep trying to rope me into a Plame debate. How do I put this? I don't care to engage in this discussion no matter how many times you bring it up. Why? Because I am not following it closely (at all) and am not going to take the time to do research. I did hear something about this Wilson guy being proven to be a flagrant liar lately - but frankly didn't pay attention to that for the same reasons stated previously. I don't know if you have noticed, but I am been spending about 10% as much time on this board as I used to for various reasons. (I never check the boards during work hours anymore- which is about 7am to 6pm. The productivity has shot through the roof!) In this spirit, I am not going to be drawn into current events I have not been following... I just wanted to let you know why I have not taken your Plame bait/offer the last 4-5 times you (or perhaps someone else) has tried to change directions of a thread with it? But if you honestly want to discuss it with others, create your own thread.
|
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Jul 31, 2004 19:10:04 GMT -5
from the WSJ....
Officials looking into the removal of classified documents from the National Archives by former Clinton National Security Adviser Samuel Berger say no original materials are missing and nothing Mr. Berger reviewed was withheld from the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
...
The conclusion by archives officials and others would seem to lay to rest the issue of whether any information was permanently destroyed or withheld from the commission.
Archives spokeswoman Susan Cooper said officials there "are confident that there aren't any original documents missing in relation to this case." She said in most cases, Mr. Berger was given photocopies to review, and that in any event officials have accounted for all originals to which he had access.
That included all drafts of a so-called after-action report prepared by the White House and federal agencies in 2000 after the investigation into a foiled bombing plot aimed at the Millennium celebrations. That report and earlier drafts are at the center of allegations that Mr. Berger might have permanently removed some records from the archives. Some of the allegations have related to the possibility that drafts with handwritten notes on them may have disappeared, but Ms. Cooper said archives staff are confident those documents aren't missing either.
Daniel Marcus, general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, said the panel had been assured twice by the Justice Department that no originals were missing and that all of the material Mr. Berger had access to had been turned over to the commission. "We are told that the Justice Department is satisfied that we've seen everything that the archives saw," and "nothing was missing," he said.
|
|