Ashcroft: Berger 9/11 Docs Reveal Clinton Security Lapse

NewsMax ^ | 7/19/04 | Carl Limbacher

[wagglebee]

The Millennium plot review warned the Clinton administration "of a substantial al Qaida network and affiliated foreign terrorist presence within the U.S., capable of supporting additional terrorist attacks here," the Bush attorney general said.

Typical of the Clinton administration: break the law rather than just let people realize how damn stupid and incompetent you really are.

[ScottFromSpokane]

Oh, man. This is bad. And yet strangely satisfying.

Let's all remember to say "Clinton NSA and Kerry adviser Sandy Begrer."

[Diogenesis]

Typical of the Bush Administration to do NOTHING about it.
Then there are the stolen FBI files, too.

[listenhillary]

How does Ashcroft know what documents were pilfered? If he knows, the documents must be common knowledge and why would Sandy bother? Scratching head in confusion here.

[what's up]

Ashcroft said this in April. I don't think he necessarily knew the documents were pilfered. In fact, maybe Berger pilfered them in response to Ashcroft's statements.

But I'm with you in wondering why Berger would have pilfered them if there were copies available.

[plain talk]

It's not FBI files. But I'm with you on the first part. The Bush WH is risk adverse to the point of paralysis. Why weren't they trashing the dems and Clinton admin over their screwup on national security for years? If they won't fight, they will lose this election.

[ex 98C MI Dude]

Classified documents are numbered, so we would know which ones were missing.

As to why Berger would bother? I will join you in the head scratching. It makes no sense.

[1066AD]

Didn't it say they were drafts, could be something in them that got cut out of the final version.

[hoosiermama]

It makes sense if he's playing a game of CYA. He really doesn't want his political career to end....

[stylin19a]

The Newsday article doesn't mention when this "pilfering" took place, but I'm thinking this had to have happened in 2003. Here's a relevant date noted in the article

He retained counsel, and in January the FBI executed search warrants of a safe at Berger's home as well as his business office where he found some of the documents. Agents also failed to locate the missing documents.

Is it safe to assume that "January" in this case is 2004 ?

[MizSterious]

In another story, it's revealed that Berger stuffed them in his pants to sneak them out.

[BluH2o]

The Newsday article doesn't mention when this "pilfering" took place ...

October 2003.

[ovrtaxt]

There are apparently a lot of details yet to surface. This story makes no sense at this level of information.

Having said that, how deep does the crap flow? Nothing would surprise me at this point.

[ovrtaxt]

They will say nothng about this for the same reason that they will say nothing about the OKC connections to Iraq.

[Winfield]

"In another story, it's revealed that Berger stuffed them in his pants to sneak them out." Oh no! You don't understand. He didn't "steal them" or "sneak them out". He "inadvertently took them". Don't you understand? Clintonistas don't steal. Hillary "inadvertently" took those files and "inadvertently" left them in the secretary's office.

[okie01]

Some insight on what Berger believed sufficiently important to stuff in his pants.

[Shermy]

And what is (apparently) missing are the "drafts." Maybe they were even tougher than the final document.

[GVnana]

This from Drudge:

"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," he [Berger] said.