Posted on 07/19/2004 7:24:23 PM PDT by wagglebee
A sensitive after action report on the foiled Millennium bomb plot, portions of which were allegedly pilfered by former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, sounded the alarm that al Qaida operatives had entered the U.S. and were preparing to strike.
In testimony before the 9/11 Commission in April, Attorney General John Ashcroft detailed the highly classified March 2000 document, saying it contained a set of sweeping recommendations on how to combat the al Qaida threat that were completely ignored by the Clinton White House.
"The NSC's Millennium After Action Review declares that the United States barely missed major terrorist attacks in 1999 -- with luck playing a major role," Ashcroft told the Commission.
"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," declared Ashcroft, "that actions taken in the Millennium Period should not be the operating model for the U.S. government."
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.
"Furthermore, fully seventeen months before the September 11 attacks, the review recommends disrupting the al Qaida network and terrorist presence here using immigration violations, minor criminal infractions, and tougher visa and border controls," he explained.
Ashcroft's comments suggested why a former Clinton national security official might not want the information contained in the Millennium review to ever see the light of day.
"Despite the warnings and the clear vulnerabilities identified by the NSC in 2000," he told the Commission, "no new disruption strategy to attack the al Qaida network within the United States was deployed. It was ignored in the Department's five-year counterterrorism strategy."
Uh. Don't you think the timing is just about perfect? I do. Chill.
OCTOBER 2003:
John Kerry's "unofficial national security advisor" Sandy Berger [ex-Clinton NSA] just "inadvertently" takes top secret Clinton administration documents concerning A-Q and terrorist attacks on the USA.
Returns "a few" secret documents after the National Archives [seeing Berger stealing away secret documents IN HIS PANTS!] contacts Berger and Bruce Linsey, Bill Clinton's [still] lapdog CYA attorney, sez "I can't find 'em all!"
JANUARY 2004:
FBI agents with federal search warrants enter and search the office and home of John Kerry's "unofficial campaign advisor" [Clinton's National Security Advisor!!!] and find "inadvertently stolen" top secret Archive documents, including some that just happen to safely locked away in Sandy Berger's office and home safes!!!!!!
Sound like the early days of the 1970's when John Kerry [For Congress!] sent his brother Cameron Kerry and another to breal into his political opponent's campaign office?
And were caught and arrested by the police in KerryGate?
Hmmmmm!
A VVAW bag-job?
Another Kerry "I have my own intelligence....."?
But then in Kansas City beween November 12-15, 1971 it is said that John Kerry actually showed up for [with his then wife Julia Thorne-Kerry] and voted "NO!"
That November 1971 vote by the Vietnam Veterans Against War Steering Committee was:
"Should we (the VVAW) assassinate six (6) US Senators this winter in Washington DC?"
Could be worse!
John Kerry could have voted "YES!"
"Kill 'em all!"
"All six (6) US Senators that are for the Viet Nam War!"
[John Kerry represented the VVAW at fund raiser rallys for the next several years, inspite of his denial. News photos and AP and NYT articles document Kerry's VVAW activities and conspiring with fake Nam Vets exposed by the DoD. The liberal media paper trail Kerry & his attorneys cannot kill!]
Well, yeah........but I still want to know WHO and why......LOL.
bttt
Well, I kinda suspect that maybe it is 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?
I can only think of 900 possible reasons, but you're on record as discounting them, so I won't try to persuade you.
But for the rest of the Peanut Gallery, yeah, I do suspect that the infamous "900 FBI Files" are holding an awful lot of "G"OPpers in check.
Here's a challenge for the skeptics: Figure out why the impeachment suddenly went South at warp speed when it came to convicting the Sinkmaster, and I'd wager you'll also have the explanation for this administration's "risk adverse to the point of paralysis" behavior.
You may not think so in your current state, but I will continue to believe that GWB knows one helluva lot more than I do.
per www.opensecrets.org
BERGER, SAMUEL
WASHINGTON,DC 20016
6/30/2003
$2,000
Gephardt, Richard A
BERGER, SAMUEL
WASHINGTON,DC 20016
STONEBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL LLC/CHAIR
6/30/2003
$2,000
Lieberman, Joe
BERGER, SAMUEL
WASHINGTON,DC 20016
STONEBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL
6/20/2002
$500
Dodd, Chris
BERGER, SAMUEL
WASHINGTON,DC 20016
STONEBRIDGE INTL/PRESIDENT/PRESIDEN
10/11/2002
$1,000
Andreasen, Steven Peter
BERGER, SAMUEL
WASHINGTON,DC 20016
STONEBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL LLC/CHAIR
6/30/2003
$2,000
Edwards, John
BERGER, SAMUEL
WASHINGTON,DC 20016
STONEBRIDGE INTNL LLC
2/6/2004
$1,000
Murray, Patty
BERGER, SAMUEL
WASHINGTON,DC 20016
STONEBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL/PRESIDENT
4/11/2001
$1,000
Shapiro, Ira S
BERGER, SAMUEL R
WASHINGTON,DC 20016
STONEBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL LLC
12/16/2003
$1,000
Bowles, Erskine B
BERGER, SAMUEL R
WASHINGTON,DC 20016
STONEBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL/CHAIRMAN
6/27/2003
$2,000
Kerry, John
BERGER, SAMUEL R
WASHINGTON,DC 20004
STONEBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL LLC
1/23/2002
$500
Bowles, Erskine B
BERGER, SAMUEL R
WASHINGTON,DC 20016
STONEBRIDGE INT'L
10/11/2002
$1,000
Strickland, Tom
BERGER, SAMUEL R
WASHINGTON,DC 20016
STRONEBRIDGE INTL LLC
8/6/2001
$1,000
Biden, Joseph R Jr
BERGER, SAMUEL R
WASHINGTON,DC 20016
STONEBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL LLC/CONSU
11/12/2003
$250
Torsella, Joseph M
BERGER, SAMUEL R
WASHINGTON,DC 20016
STONEBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL/CONSULTAN
12/8/2003
$1,000
Harman, Jane
BERGER, SAMUEL R
WASHINGTON,DC 20004
STONEBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL LLC
10/30/2002
$500
Bowles, Erskine B
BERGER, SAMUEL R
WASHINGTON,DC 20016
STRONEBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL/CONSULTA
11/19/2001
$1,000
Harman, Jane
BERGER, SAMUEL R MR
WASHINGTON,DC 20004
STONEBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL LLC/CHAIR
3/31/2004
$250
Metzl, Jamie
When will they learn: It is not the crime but the coverup! that gets you.
Perhaps all the documents were copied or scanned to PDF? That way if the documents returned by Berger didn't match, it could only mean Berger removed or replaced documents.
Don't they have security cams at the joint? Or do they just rely on hot rumors from the nearest Waffle House?
On another thread it was reported that the Archivist put secret marks on the docs.
Looking forward to a well roasted Burger.
Mark Levin: This is why Berger stole the documents and 'lost' them
Posted by holdonnow to woofie
On News/Activism 07/19/2004 10:15:47 PM PDT #113 of 127
This should be a very, very big deal, and the Democrats will attempt to do everything possible to kill it. It's big because it is a crime to destroy government property, including classified documents, and to obstruct a government investigation (9/11 investigation). The information that was destroyed, to the extent we know about it thanks to Ashcroft's testimony, most likely showed the extent to which the Clinton administration failed to adopt recommended policies to fight terrorism. And my guess is that some of those recommendations must have had some relevance to stopping what would become 9/11, otherwise Berger would not have risked everything to get to them. Have a good night.
Sure.
Give me a 'ping' when somebody goes to jail.
Is that the same archivist who gave Bruce Lindsey the heads-up?
No mealy mouth from me. There are just ways to do things when you chose to run for elected office. You lose your freedom to act like a normal Joe and go fight your way through your troubles. You have to consider pros and cons, you have to pick your battles, you have to analyze the other side's counter-moves.
But, no, a politician making it all the way to President must conform to your wishes and throw caution to the wind no matter the cost.
This president is running for re-election to the office of President of the U.S. We expect someone who considers his actions and their consequences. There are different ways to handle the same objectives. That is all I am saying - sometimes Bush has weighed the pros and cons and decided to defer action or work behind the scenes rather than incite outlandish reactions and media coverage.
Just why is he not to protect himself and his goals?
Aah, you and I are on the same page.
I just had a grumpy kinda day and now I'm all impatient to see the scumbag Democrat Party squashed like a cockroach. I don't want to see this outstanding opportunity fizzle.
Regards,
LH
Trust me - it won't. We can't really think that the Bush administration would allow theft of classified documents. Yet, it will be handled by normal investigative procedures without President Bush taking the flack for it.
Ashcroft made the first move in his testimony. Now the investigation. Things are being handled and will be - but by Ashcroft's department.
Say, John, where *are* those tougher visa and border controls?? I don't believe I've seen any down this way.
Berger must have thought the Clintons were still in charge and they could just pilfer things like Maggie Williams out of Vince Foster's office the night of his death.
Try this mantra, Sandy: "No controlling legal authority." Works on the dupes at CNN anyway.
ABC Radio News, on the other hand, is making this sound like it's all one little innocent mistake.
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.