Posted on 07/19/2004 8:42:16 PM PDT by Roscoe Karns
This is why he stole the documents and "lost" them: http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200404151634.asp
Not certain of all that is in it, but certainly there must be backup copies. This report tells of the danger of al Qaeda in the U.S. Clinton has tried to claim that his team warned Bush. Bush says he did not. And Ashcroft testified that he was never given this report. Clinton is caught in another lie and if Berger is not caught with his pants down, at least he is caught with something in his pants.
This is too big to hide. A major Clinton player and now Kerry advisor who may soon be indicted. They have been caught lying about what they told Bush. They withheld this report from him.
Maybe Michael Moore will do a documentary on this!
Not in our lifetimes; well, maybe yours, but not mine!
Will they mention he's a Kerry adviser?
No. Top of the news, though. "Pres. Clinton's national security adviser is under investigation...has admitted...has offered to cooperate fully." On to other news.
I sure hope you're right and that the press will spell it out that simply for Mr. and Mrs. Joe Public.
The mind boggles at the idea of this guy just walking outta there, bold as brass, with not just classified, but "Highly Classified" documents...
The alphabets and CNN are in shock.
A "Berger gate" story would swamp the DNC convention.
It woulde make the convention about Clintonistas and the candidate would become "kerry-who?"
Yes, Berger is a Kerry adviser. I wish the moderator could go through this thread and the monster thread on this topic, and edit every mention of Berger to read, "Kerry adviser Sandy Berger." ;)
"Suppose some French conclude we are too stupid and corrupt, to trust with leading the WOT?"
They probably already do. The trick as you suggest is to convince the American voters that the democrats are too stupid and corrupt to lead the war on terror.
The Bush team need to be careful not to "blame" the democrats for 9/11 though. They didn't cause it - anymore than Bush caused it. But the security lapses need to be explained.
I think a lot of it has to do with Clinton's fear of something "bad" happening on his watch to erase all the "good" things - primarily the stock bubble. Or that the something "bad" would be found out (like TWA 800).
And Bush's team needs to figure out "nice" ways of attacking the dems on hiding this policy. This just isn't a small memo about some phone converstation, etc. This is a policy position that was ignored by the dems. AND IT IS STIIL BEING IGNORED BY THE DEMS! (Such as Kerry stating that the terrorism risk is overstated).
But Bush needs to stay above the fray of putting the blame of 9/11 on the democrats. Using the word "blame" makes it it sound like the dems wanted 9/11 to happen. (I know - on FR we make it sound like they did, but I honestly don't think that is true of the majority).
Bush needs to continue his role as the "straight shooter". I know the democrats think he is a liar, but Bush needs to say things like:
The economy is better, the war on terror is better, but there are still problems. We don't like to think of the bad things that can happen to us - Americans are a positive and optimistic sort of people.
I'm optimistic too - but one of the things I was hired to do was to protect the American people. So I need to be concerned about the bad things that can happen.
And I have a duty to act on those things. That is why the Patriot Act is so important. That is why the Iraq war is so important.
And we are making progress. (Then maybe bring up some recent little-known captures and successess - maybe his team could do a search on FR!).
Deputy National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is being promoted to the council's top post, replacing National Security Adviser Tony Lake, who is leaving to head the CIA. Berger will be spared the confirmation process as the job is a presidential staff position, not a Cabinet slot. Updated Dec. 9 (1996)
http://cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candidates/cabinet.shuffle/nsa.shtml
Anthony Lake sure didn't make it.
From: donna (emailname) *
03/28/99 12:20:15 PST
Hugh Hewitt's posted on his website tonight:
"Ask yourself what would be going on in Washington, D.C. tonight, and on the network news, within the blogospere, and in the morning papers, if it had been revealed that Condi Rice was the target of a criminal investigation for removing classified handwritten notes from the government records relating to terrorism."
Amen, Hugh!
Somehow the mental image of Berger stuffing them in his pants is what's particularly compelling and might catch the public's attention -- it shows consciousness of guilt.
***From Ashcroft testimony, we learned that the Clinton team did not tell anyone on the Bush team about a highly classified review. The review warned of al Qaeda cells and the danger they were posing inside the U.S. We were unbelievably lucky to keep LAX from being blown apart on the eve of the new Millenium. It was basically a fluke and one alert agent.***
WORTH REPEATING.
Deputy National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is being promoted to the council's top post, replacing National Security Adviser Tony Lake, who is leaving to head the CIA. Berger will be spared the confirmation process as the job is a presidential staff position, not a Cabinet slot. Updated Dec. 9 (1996)
http://cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candidates/cabinet.shuffle/nsa.shtml
Anthony Lake sure didn't make it.
From: donna (emailname) *
03/28/99 12:20:15 PST
Sandy Berger Worked for the Chinese Government
Washington Weekly
Monday, March 29, 1999 Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ)
Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), House of Representatives, 3/23/99
WASHINGTON -- Is Berger's lobbying a conflict of interest that disqualifies him from taking part in the talks on China's trade status? No, White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum ruled recently. Two weeks ago, in a letter to Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), Nussbaum |
declared that Berger is free to participate in the Administration's discussions on China's trade benefits because neither Payless nor Berger's former law firm, Hogan & Hartson, is itself a party in the trade issue. "While (Payless) may have an interest in the outcome, that interest is one shared by many persons and entities," he explained. Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit group that monitors foreign lobbying in Washington, protested the ruling: "Anybody who's already worked on this issue concerning MFN and then turns around and handles it in the Administration just months after representing a client, well, what's the old thing, 'That dog don't hunt'? " Wolf said Tuesday that he is not satisfied with the ruling. "I think it would have been better had Berger not been involved," he said.
|
Right out of the starting gate, Mr. Berger was an unfortunate choice for a national security position with the government because of his prior role as the chief Washington lobbyist for the Chinese government trade office.( "Leaks On Berger’s Watch," Edward Timperlake and William Triplett Washington Times, March 22, 1999)
***I would ask how deep does this go? Did Clinton KNOW an attack was about to take place and turned a blind eye because he WANTED it to happen? How deep does this go!***
Well, I seem to remember a quote from Clinton to the effect that he wished the attack on the WTC had happened on his watch. Anybody have that quote?
bttt
Does this showing up tonight lessen the impact of what those partisans wrote in the 9/11 report?
Thanks for the ping!
bttt
For months the far left crazies have been saying "BUSH KNEW," that he should have known 9/11 was coming.
What an amazing thing it would be if it turned out that all along, "CLINTON KNEW."
One has to wonder why Berger would expose himself to potential prosecution for felonies in order to get rid of those "Highly Classified" records.
Correction, not that Bush "should have known," but that he knew.
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.