Posted on 04/02/2005 9:38:42 AM PST by Pendragon_6
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: It's a great April Fool's joke. Sandy Burglar admits, ladies and gentlemen, to taking documents out of the National Archives three to four different occasions and is going to get a $10,000 fine and loose his security clearance for three years. (story) White House national security advisor under President Clinton and also a foreign policy advisor to John Kerry, Sandy Burglar pleads guilty today to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information.
Burglar is scheduled to offer the plea at Washington this afternoon before a federal magistrate. Now, the charge stems from a period in 2003 when Mr. Burglar was helping Mr. Clinton prepare for testimony before a national commission investigating the September 11th attacks. And as I say, what's interesting is he was taking stuff out of there, he was taking it home. When you listen to some of the excuses here that the lawyer mentioned, "Well, you know, he just couldn't concentrate in there, in that holding room. He wanted to take these things home, wanted to compare these notes and make sure they were accurate," blah, blah, blah. Well, fine and dandy, I want to know what he took back in there. What did he replace?
This is the thing, the Clinton administration was doing everything it could to shift blame to the Bush administration doing nothing prior to the 9/11 attacks to let them happen. This is what the 9/11 Commission was looking into. In fact, John Fund writes today that, "If the 9/11 Commission is to be believed, the documents that Sandy Burglar took and then intentionally destroyed could have great meaning. Thomas Kean, the chairman of the commission, has said that President Clinton believed with absolute certainty that Iraq provided Al-Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction, expertise, and technology in the nineties.
But the 9/11 Commission found that Mr. Burglar rejected four plans to capture or kill bin Laden because he was worried that, 'If bin Laden responds with an attack we're going to get blamed,' meaning the Clinton administration. Indeed after a 1998 briefing from the then CIA director George Tenet, Sandy Burglar took no action against bin Laden, because he was focused most on legal questions. The 9/11 report stated that Burglar worried that the hard evidence against bin Laden was still skimpy. There was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the US only to see him acquitted."
Continued
Berger, like all the Clinton Mafia, deserve to be hanging from trees for what they did to this country. If I had stolen CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS FROM A NATIONAL ARCHIVE, I would never be seen again.
I for one, am tired of the Washington double standards.
yep Rush is right on, I do not understand the Justice Department's rationale here, someone should be forced to explain this......could Berger have some blackmail material in reserve, something damaging to the Bush administration or what?
while I've never understood why the Bush administration seemed to shy away from an Iraq Al Queda connection in the run up to the Iraqi war, given how that would bolster their own case, beyond that fact that 9-11 meant all threats had to be reassessed, another point most of the MSM misses -Saddam had been a festering threat for most of the 1990's, it always stunned me the way the Demonrats forget who suggested the link in the first place, why old Bubba and Clarke...
or the fact that Clinton with the support of Gore, Kerry, Clarke et al, passed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998 which said the only way to VERIFIABLY DISARM IRAQ WAS VIA REGIME CHANGE....
well hoo hah, Bubba was actually 100 per cent right for once, REGIME CHANGE was the only way to VERIFIABLY DISARM IRAQ, because even Hans Blix acknowledged in his final reports that he wasn't getting full co-operation from the Iraqis yet again, and lest we forget, UNMOVIC found violations of the sanctions, in the run up to the war, like those missiles Saddam wasn't supposed to be building......
and to Bubba's credit, he still says he supported the war in principle, if not in execution.....I can't remember how do the Demonrats explain this away, their Superstar agrees with Bush and the neo cons?
There is a story, told by a very liberal Pulitizer Prize winning journalist, Sydney Schanberg, who works for the Village Voice, no less, trust me he is no Bush lover, that Kerry had his staffers shredding classified material when he was the Chairman of the Committee on MIA/POW affairs, his only leadership role in his whole career as a Senator by the way, and in fact some CIA agents caught them but nothing was done to punish anyone there either.....stunned me that this was rarely brought up if at all even by conservative media, even by the Swift Boat vets, during the elections...especially given Kerry's band of brothers routine
the theory as espoused by the author and many of the families of POWS and MIAs was that Kerry and others suppressed evidence of sightings of POWS and MIAS in Vietnam in order to hurry up normalization of relations with Vietnam, the author concludes either Kerry was part of the coverup or rush to conclude the investigation or he was very inept as Chairman, take your pick but given his background as a lawyer?
from the article
Here are details of a few of the specific steps Kerry took to hide evidence about these P.O.W.'s.
He gave orders to his committee staff to shred crucial intelligence documents. The shredding stopped only when some intelligence staffers staged a protest. Some wrote internal memos calling for a criminal investigation. One such memofrom John F. McCreary, a lawyer and staff intelligence analystreported that the committee's chief counsel, J. William Codinha, a longtime Kerry friend, "ridiculed the staff members" and said, "Who's the injured party?" When staffers cited "the 2,494 families of the unaccounted-for U.S. servicemen, among others," the McCreary memo continued, Codinha said: "Who's going to tell them? It's classified."
Kerry defended the shredding by saying the documents weren't originals, only copiesbut the staff's fear was that with the destruction of the copies, the information would never get into the public domain, which it didn't. Kerry had promised the staff that all documents acquired and prepared by the committee would be turned over to the National Archives at the committee's expiration. This didn't happen. Both the staff and independent researchers reported that many critical documents were withheld.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0408,schanberg,51276,1.html
The families of the POWS and MIA's go on further to allege that the reason Kerry was in a rush to normalize relations with his buddies the Viet Cong was his cousin already had signed on to do 900 million dollars worth of reconstruction contracts in Vietnam and he couldn't get started until normalization was declared
gee it seems shredding isn't just a Republican pastime (see Oliver North and Watergate) and in fact could we say the Democrats are worse, shredding documents that are from or belong in the National Archives, isn't that worse than shredding your own personal correspondence etc......
Democracts do not get prosecuted.
Democracts do not get prosecuted.
=====
And what is the logical conclusion about our judicial system in that regard ???
It has to do with political will. Democrat administrations have no qualms about going after Republicans. Republicans, by contrast, prefer to make nice with Democrats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.