you stuff files into your socks…thats how.
A little on the obfuscations emanating from the DNC, with Terry McAuliffe making an FOIA request to imply the White House leaked the info on Sandy Berger (looks much more likely it was the Democrats doing the leaking for damage control):
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_07_18_corner-archive.asp#036223
MORE TERRY [Mark R. Levin]
The irony with McAuliffe’s FOIA request is that one of the most recent federal court decisions upholding the White House exemption from document production under FOIA – which he now seeks – was a lawsuit brought by Juanita Broaddrick against Bill Clinton in Broaddrick v. Exec. Office of the President, 139 F. Supp. 2d 55, 58 (D.D.C., 2001). Surely McAuliffe and his DNC lawyers are aware of this, which is why this is a PR stunt and nothing more. … Ok, don’t worry … I’m moving on …
Posted at 07:30 PM
Good stuff.
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_07_18_corner-archive.asp#036264
BERGER, 9/11 [Mark R. Levin]
Well, the 9/11 report doesn’t trash Bush, so the idea that the Berger information was leaked to draw attention away from the supposed anti-Bush report has no legs. Moreover, the Bush administration had this report days ago for vetting purposes. It knew the report didn’t trash Bush. So, the charge that the administration was motivated to leak this information seems way off the mark. In addition, the news reports this morning suggest, to me, that Berger has much to fear and that he will eventually be charged. Apart from stuffing classified information in his pockets, or wherever, he engaged in deceptive conduct over many hours, during separate visits to the Archives, which will be very difficult for DOJ’s Public Integrity Section to overlook. The argument that this was inadvertent is laughable, yet that’s what his defenders continue to throw against the wall.
Keep in mind, these documents would have special covers on them, usually in red, with bold lettering stating that they are, in this case, top-secret/code-word classified. Each page would be stamped with bold warnings. As a former National Security Advisor, Berger has handled hundreds if not thousands of documents of this kind. Even on a messy desk at home, these documents would be difficult to lose.
Lanny Davis’s tactics of leaking bad information in order to control the media spin is clearly in play, if not by him, by others. But he is now a prominent voice pointing a finger at purported Bush motives. The Berger story first appeared in the Associated Press, and was written by John Solomon, whom Davis reveals in his book as his favorite reporter. In addition to Davis, the usual Clinton propagandists are involved as well – Lanny Breuer and Joe Lockhart.
It’s a crime to mishandle classified documents in this manner whether or not Berger had some nefarious intent. Intent would go to the level of law-breaking, not the fact of it. But some have asked what would motivate Berger to do this. My guess is that Berger may well have thought that the various drafts of the after-action Millennium report, and their different iterations, were the only copies, that they were devastating, and that he knew the final Millennium report was a watered down version. After all, he had originally ordered the preparation of the report, tasking the job to Richard Clarke. But even if Berger knew other copies of the drafts existed, the information would be useful in advising John Kerry on security issues to emphasize during his campaign, and in advising Bill Clinton on how defend his administration’s conduct in the days leading up to 9/11. This would also explain why he took notes.
Whatever the motive, this is a major national security breach. Some of these documents have received the nation’s highest security protection – code word. The release to the public of as much of this information as possible – the drafts, the final report and Berger’s notes – would go a long way in explaining exactly what Berger was up to. I wonder if the Kerry campaign and the Clintonoids would support this?
Posted at 11:16 AM
What a excellent article there bb!!! These are things I have been hearing and reading about as well.
What is going to be interesting is a couple of things from all of this…
-
Who was Mr. Berger talking to on the cellphone, that the National Archives guards saw him doing?
-
What were the documents and notes that were actually taken, and destroyed by supposedly" accident" by mr. Berger?
-
Did Mr. Berger contact and inform John Kerry about that he was being investigated.?
4)Did someone inform Mr. Berger from the Democratic party, to remove those docs, and to have them destroyed?
Will be interesting to see the answers to these questions…
And funny you mention about the socks…Being reported from the New York News…
"
…After three days of denials from his legal team, eyewitnesses to Sandy Berger’s top secret document heist have confirmed that the former national security adviser did indeed stash national security secrets in his socks, as well as in his pants pockets.
“The stuffed socks and pockets is real,” a senior law enforcement official told the New York Daily News. “The [theft] was reported by the guards.”
Guards at the National Archives told the FBI that Berger was observed stuffing his socks with handwritten notes about files he reviewed that were going to the Sept. 11 panel, the News said…"Guards also told investigators that Berger repeatedly asked to be left alone so he could make private phone calls.
Joe
A couple of points…
-
How you and I are treated would not be the same as Sandy Berger.
-
If people actually saw him stuffing documents into his clothes they should have confronted him at that time.
-
Although his resignation may appear minor, he is effectively disqualified from future positions in a potential Kerry administration unless this can be cleared up effectively.
-
Wild allegations show up in the press a lot these days, from both the left and the right. It seems that speculation turns into “sources” and things begin to look pretty black and white to the reader based on the slant of the article.
Time will tell. If he’s guilty, then by all means lock him up!!!
I call him …the Hambergerler
This is such a non-story.
First of all, try stuffing a document into your socks. Try it! No folding allowed…! Really “stuff” it as some retards are claiming. Does it seem realistic to think he stuffed documents in his socks??
Any news source that says he stuffed documents into his socks is full of shit.
Secondly, he was reviewing his own writings on the Millenium bomb plots. He was looking over various versions of the same documents. He took notes. Part of the stink here is that he didn’t show his notes to get clearance. All of this was done to refresh his memory before testifying before the 9-11 commission.
Now what exactly was he allegedly trying to accomplish, by “stealing” documents?
Gee whiz, maybe he’s trying to cover up evidence about how the Clinton administration actually PREVENTED terrorist attacks during the millenium period? Boy, I bet they really want to prevent that information from getting out!
The FBI searched his ofice and all but one document was returned. One document was inadvertantly thrown out. Since he was looking at copies, there is no evidence to suggest that he threw away the last copy of anything.
Ten months later, the republican-controlled Justice Department (John Asscroft) hasn’t filed any charges against Sandy Berger. WHY NOT?
Maybe there is really not much substance to this story?
Lumpy -
Employees at the National Achives, who were witness to the sock stuffing, disagree with you.
But who are the libs to believe eye witnesses anyway?
Are these the same eyewitnesses that saw Bush reading magazines during his time of service?
Time will tell. I could imagine him stuffing papers into a jacket pocket or something, or putting a pen away, or whatever.
If he’s stuffing papers into his pants or his socks, some idiot should have accosted him on the spot. Why watch and let him walk out? That would make you an accomplice or something…
I don’t believe it, the sock stuffing, yet. It’s possible, but I’m waiting.
TOO MUCH HYPOCRISY!!!
I can just IMAGINE if Dick Cheney had stuffed papers into his socks, his ears, or his ass. The Democrats would be calling for an Independent Investigation. NPR would run it as it’s first story. On and on and on.
I just find it hard to believe that a Clintonite would actually commit a Federal offense. The Clinton’s don’t lie under oath, accept bribes, and steal furniture. Do they?
The most telling quote of all was Bill Clinton saying, “We were all laughing…” Federal offenses depend on what the definition of is is.
Having fun.
JeffR
P.S. It’s fun watching Lumpy defend this.
There is something very very interesting about this all…Especially after one reads the following article. Taken from the Washington Times…
By Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough
Covering up?
U.S. officials tell us that the FBI is focusing on a single document in its investigation of former White House National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger. Investigators are trying to determine why Mr. Berger improperly removed a highly classified after-action report by Richard A. Clarke, an aide to Mr. Berger, that was harshly critical of the Clinton administration’s response to the so-called millennium terrorist plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport and other targets in late 1999.
Mr. Clarke was the National Security Council staff aide who ended up as a Democratic holdover in the Bush administration. He went public before the September 11 commission with harsh criticism of President Bush and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice for failing to take his advice in doing more against al Qaeda before the 2001 terrorist attacks.
Officials said the investigation into the removal of the Clarke memorandum is expected to lead to the declassification and publication of the document. This could expose the duplicity of Mr. Clarke, who had little criticism of the Clinton administration in public.
U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies have used the millennium plot as an example of a counterterrorism success. But the Clarke memorandum is likely to portray a different picture…
And this is now coming out…Kerry Anti-Terror Plan Removed From Campaign Web Site After Berger Revelation
By Jeff Gannon
Talon News
July 22, 2004
WASHINGTON (Talon News) – Shortly after news broke that former Clinton administration National Security Advisor Samuel “Sandy” Berger was being investigated by the Justice Department for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives, the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) removed its anti-terror plan from its web site.
And here is the link to that portion that was removed…
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1175720/posts
And for those og you that don’t want to read this…these are the key provisions from it:
Key portions of the policy removed from the web site included the following three passages:
– Increase Port Security and Accelerate Border Security. Currently, 95% of all non-North American U.S. trade moves by sea, concentrated mostly in a handful of ports. John Kerry believes improvements in port security must be made, while recognizing that global prosperity and America’s economic power depends on an efficient system. Kerry’s plan would develop standards for security at ports and other loading facilities for containers and assure facilities can meet basic standards. To improve security in commerce, John Kerry believes we should accelerate the timetable for the action plans agreed to in the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico “smart border” accords as well as implement security measures for cross-border bridges. Finally John Kerry will pursue modest safety standards for privately held infrastructure and will help owners find economical ways to pay for increased security.
– Secure Nuclear Power Plants, Nuclear Weapons Facilities and Chemical Facilities. John Kerry will appoint an Energy Secretary who takes nuclear plant security seriously and ensures meticulous follow-up to any security violations. He would also order an immediate review of engagement orders and weaponry for plant guards, and ensure attack simulation drills be as realistic as possible. A Kerry Administration would ensure that security of our nuclear weapons facilities is a U.S. government responsibility – not cede it to private contractors as the Bush Administration considered doing. A Kerry Administration will tighten security at chemical facilities across the nation that produce or store chemicals, focusing first on facilities in major urban areas where millions of Americans live within the circle of vulnerability.
– Tighten Aviation Security and Combat Threats to Civilian Aircraft. John Kerry will close loopholes in existing regulations on cargo carried by passenger flights and increase the reliability of new screening procedures. Kerry will increase perimeter inspections of U.S. airports and work with international aviation authorities to make sure the same standards are in place at all international airports. He will work with our allies to crackdown on the sale of shoulder-fired missiles that could be used in an attack on civilian aircraft, and are sold on the black market.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) said, “Reportedly these documents related to homeland security and then suddenly we see that the Kerry campaign came forward with what may have been illegal documents. This is sensitive stuff and was a significant breach of security.”
“Kerry knows better than to use these documents,” Chambliss added.
Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR)said this , “There is a curious connection between the removal of these documents and the Kerry press conference on port security. It’s disappointing what people might do as they try to take the president down.”
Now why would this be removed from the John Kerry Website???
Joe
[quote]vroom wrote:
Are these the same eyewitnesses that saw Bush reading magazines during his time of service?
[/quote]
How can you make a parallel between Berger heisting top-secret documents, and Bush’s military records?
If you’re going to do that, then Watergate would seem to be much more approriate.
More on Mr. Berger, from Prof. Glenn Reynolds:
http://instapundit.com/
archives/016734.php
BERGER UPDATE: DRUDGE is flashing a New York Sun item on Sandy Berger. The bottom line:
?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.
(Emphasis added.) Ouch. The Sun is right to stress that this doesn’t make Berger responsible for the 9/11 attacks, of course. But it does suggest that he was the wrong man to hold the job he held under Clinton, and that he was a poor choice as senior foreign policy adviser for the Kerry campaign. As Martin Peretz said, “He clearly still has McGovernite politics, which means, in my mind, at least, that he believes there is no international dispute that can’t be solved by the U.S. walking away from it.”
I hope John Kerry doesn’t share those instincts, which proved tragically wrong in this case. But then why did he choose Berger as an advisor?
UPDATE: Especially with this track record, which I had forgotten about until a reader sent me this BBC story from 1999, found via Newsfeed:
President Clinton has defended his National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, against demands for him to resign over the alleged theft by China of US nuclear secrets.
Eighty opposition Republicans earlier wrote to Mr Clinton saying they wanted Mr Berger to resign.
"Mr Berger has failed in his responsibility as this nation's national security advisor by not properly informing you of the most serious espionage ever committed against the United States," the lawmakers said in the letter.
They said he knew of concerns about Chinese espionage, but delayed taking action.
What is it with this guy and secrets? And delays in taking action, or telling his boss?
Who wants to bet that Sandy Berger does a ‘Vince Foster’?
c’mon peart -
As vroom has said on countless occasions - This is not the Clinton Admin anymore.
How dare you imply that Vince met an untimely demise not of his choosing.
How dare you imply that the Hambergerler might meet a similar fate.
But I could be wrong.
Rainman, wake up dude, I was merely implying how much I trust imaginary eyewitness reports.
I don’t know where you get your assumptions about what I’m thinking?
Hmm, a point on the web site content removal… it seems to me that with the reports coming out, he might want to take the material down in case anything he has stated is in contradiction with the report.
However, removing things from a web site doesn’t seem all that big a deal, especially with the “important points” you were showing us.
I like seeing the consipiracy theory shoe on the other foot though. Those of you calling the left conspiracy nuts can have a dose of your own medicine it seems.
After reading all of the posts on this matter, I took some time this morning to really sit down and look into all aspects of this Sandy Berger removing the docs, from the National Achives, and why would he do it? Or how serious is this?
Now what is missing from this report and what Sandy Berger took were two or three draft versions of the report as it was evolving and being refined by the Clinton administration, officials and lawyers say. These drafts were written by by Clinton counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke and had been changed somewhat, as is customary, as the drafts were circulated among relevant agencies and officials.
Now what is this document all about? And why would Sandy Berger take drafts from it? The NSC “Millennium After Action Review” included in it very critical assessments about the Clinton administration’s handling of the millennium terror threats as well as identification of America’s terror vulnerabilities at airports and seaports.
The former national security adviser Sandy Berger, himself had ordered his anti-terror czar Richard Clarke in early 2000 to write the after-action report and has spoken publicly about how the review brought to the forefront the realization that al-Qaida had reached America’s shores and required more attention.
The NSC’s Millennium After Action Review declares that the United States barely missed major terrorist attacks in 1999. Among the many vulnerabilities in homeland defenses identified, the Justice Department’s surveillance and FISA operations were specifically criticized for their glaring weaknesses. It is clear from the review that actions taken in the Millennium Period should not be the operating model for the U.S. government.
Now what is missing from this report and what Sandy Berger took were The missing documents involved two or three draft versions of the report as it was evolving and being refined by the Clinton administration, officials and lawyers say. These drafts were written by by Clinton counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke and had been changed somewhat, as is customary, as the drafts were circulated among relevant agencies and officials.
But the sources close to Berger said there were other copies of the drafts, that the commission had the final version of the report and that Clarke had said there were not significant changes during the drafting process
Now John Ashcroft in his testimony, said this about this report, to the 9/11 Commission: "…In March 2000, the review warns the prior Administration of a substantial al Qaeda network and affiliated foreign terrorist presence within the U.S., capable of supporting additional terrorist attacks here.
Furthermore, fully seventeen months before the September 11 attacks, the review recommends disrupting the al Qaeda network and terrorist presence here using immigration violations, minor criminal infractions, and tougher visa and border controls.
These are the same aggressive, often criticized law enforcement tactics we have unleashed for 31 months to stop another al Qaeda attack. These are the same tough tactics we deployed to catch Ali al-Marri, who was sent here by al Qaeda on September 10, 2001, to facilitate a second wave of terrorist attacks on Americans.
Despite the warnings and the clear vulnerabilities identified by the NSC in 2000, no new disruption strategy to attack the al Qaeda network within the United States was deployed. It was ignored in the Department’s five-year counterterrorism strategy.
I did not see the highly-classified review before September 11. It was not among the 30 items upon which my predecessor briefed me during the transition. It was not advocated as a disruption strategy to me during the summer threat period by the NSC staff which wrote the review more than a year earlier.
I certainly cannot say why the blueprint for security was not followed in 2000. I do know from my personal experience that those who take the kind of tough measures called for in the plan will feel the heat. I’ve been there; I’ve done that. So the sense of urgency simply may not have overcome concern about the outcry and criticism which follows such tough tactics…"
A document that centers on Al Queda and National Security. But now something else is now being found out about this all; From World Net Daily: "… also was found in possession of a small number of classified papers containing his handwritten notes from Middle East peace talks during the Clinton administration, according to a source familiar with the investigation
Although the Mideast notes are not the main focus of the current criminal probe, the source says their removal may shed further light on Berger’s intentions. The Mideast notes were allegedly taken from the National Archives along with classified documents that officials say may paint the Clinton administration’s handling of the al-Qaida threat in a negative way.
Berger was heavily involved in several Israeli-Palestinian initiatives in the 1990s, and in Clinton’s seeing Arafat and the Palestinians as negotiating partners, all leading to Camp David, which many now regard as a huge policy mistake that culminated in the violence still raging," said the source
Many American and Israeli political experts have in recent years blasted Clinton’s approach to Mideast peacemaking, and some have openly blamed his administration’s policies – seeking major Israeli territorial concessions in exchange for promises of peace by the Palestinian Authority – as factors in Arafat’s decision to launch the Intifada.
Clinton also famously helped turn Arafat’s image from guerilla leader to statesman, inviting the PLO president to the White House more times than he did any other world leader. Bush and Sharon have been trying to isolate Arafat, saying he is directly involved in terrorism.
Berger, a close confidante of former President Bill Clinton, was designated as the official from the Clinton administration who would review documents relevant to the 9-11 commission’s probe…"
Bow again these documents were taken back in October 2003. And Sandy Berger was a informal advisor to John Kerry on Foreign Affairs.
So this is what was taken? Why was he allowed to? Why was Berger allowed to stuff these documents in his socks and pants? And why was he allowed to make phone calls while in the room?
The staff at the Archives was clearly aroused by the ‘inadvertent’ actions of Mr. Berger. They became so concerned that they set up what was in effect a small sting operation to catch him. And, he 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."
Now comes the interesting factors: Who was it that Berger was talking to? And this about the website? Why would one change his policy towards National Security just like that?
And when you read what Kerry had on the website, in reagrds to the section on terorism removed. And you read what this memo had in it, and what was taken. It truly makes you wonder…
Joe
Considering how it would look and the potential for huge scandal I’m surprised he did it.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainman, wake up dude, I was merely implying how much I trust imaginary eyewitness reports.
I don’t know where you get your assumptions about what I’m thinking?[/quote]
I think you are either trying to minimize the Hambergerler’s actions, or throw up a lumpy-esque smoke screen to put blame back on Bush.
I get my assumptions from your posts.