SENATE REPUBLICANS ACCUSE JOHN KERRY OF USING CLASSIFIED INFO STOLEN BY SANDY BERGER

ABC News- 'Noted Now' Latest Political Breaking News ^ | 7/20/04

[gopwinsin04]

SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS: 'Reportedly these documents are related to homeland security and then suddenly we see 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 says in a press conference.

SEN. GORDON SMITH: '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 and take the President down.

[Snapple]

You write, "Mark Levin.....said on his radio show...that the 9/11 committee's report says that they got absolutely no...papers about the after reports ( which they DID request!)concerning the bombing Clinton ordered on the al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan,which Clinton then claimed had killed 20 men,but had missed old OBL by 1/2 hour.Now, THIS is important,because there's NO proof that this fish story is factual/contains any truth at all.And Clinton is trying to use this,to shore up his legacy,but it isn't working."

This may well be one of the documents that Berger stole. But the after report on the action in Afghanistan isn't something that Kerry supposedly posted. I think what Berger did was wrong, but it doesn't necessarily follow that Kerry is involved. I suspect that had Kerry known Berger was being investigated by the FBI, Kerry would have dropped Berger cold.

I think it is more likely that Berger was getting rid of stuff that embarrassed him or the Clinton administration.

Or he may just have wanted to work at home. That does happen. Of course if he was frequently "going to the bathroom" with papers on his person, that looks more like he was flushing papers--which is different than taking them to Kerry.

As for Berger being able to "make up" a fish story about attacking Bin Laden, this is unlikely. A lot of people were involved in this operation. The people in the CIA would never testify to some concocted story Berger made up.

People in the Directorate of Operations testified. They aren't going to lie for Berger.

[nopardons]

Obfuscation,changing the topic,making the same old,very tired excuses for Sandy and being either totally incapable of reading and understanding what I wrote are all still your MO,I see.

Well,pet,you really will have to find somebody else to explain all of this to you,as my car and driver are waiting for me,it's my Thursday evening with Henry K.,Bill B.,and the gang,in Stamford.(/sarcasm)

Try reading the rest of the threads on this topic,as well as watching some FNC.:-)

Kerry knew about Sandy,or he's an even bigger moron than all of FR,except YOU,think he is.

I'm rather bored with having the unpaid job of being your dominatrix.Please go find someone else to feed your masochism.:-)

[nopardons]

You really ARE out of your depth and just plain old nuts.LOL

WILLIAM JEFFERSON BLYTHE CLINTON IS NOT PRESIDENT RIGHT NOW!

[Snapple]

Even tho' Kerry deleted information about terrorist policy from his site, I don't think what Berger was up to involved Kerry. That is, I don't think Kerry had any classified papers from Berger. Naturally since Berger wrote or ordered these papers written in the first place, Kerry's site might reflect Berger's thinking.

I think that if Kerry had known about the investigation of Berger, he wouldn't have used him to write policy. Kerry was probably removing anything that could be from Berger to distance himself.

The fact that he just removed this information suggests to me he just found out about Berger's legal problems.

Today in the Washington Times there is an article that describes the paper the FBI is concerned about. Berger seems to be covering up something, not sharing it. I think what he was doing has more to do with protecting his own image or Clinton's.

Here is the link and a short quote
http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm

"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."

[Snapple]

You write that "Clinton is not president right now."

I don't quite understand your point. Are you saying that the classification of Clinton's secret papers is not important because he is no longer president?

This is not the position of the government (or the position of the title of this link). That is why the FBI is investigating Berger. The paper the FBI is concerned about is not something Kerry had on his site.

The classified paper that is missing is reportedly about the Millenium plot. It is called an after report and is very critical of the Clinton administration.

Here is a link http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm

Chambliss is going to be on FOX in a few minutes. He will be talking about the 9-11 Commission report. Maybe he will be asked about Berger.

[Snapple]

This article http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm
describes the stolen paper that the FBI is focusing on.

In this secret paper, Clarke is very critical of Clinton.

However, when Clarke wrote his book and testified for the 9-11 Commission (about the same time his book was published) he praised Clinton and trashed Bush.

I think it is possible that Berger was trying to get rid of this paper because it would undercut Clarke and embarrass Clinton.

Clarke seems to have been two-faced: critical of Clinton in private and supportive of him in public. The paper is also going to be declassified and will undercut Clarke.

I don't think Berger was stealing these papers for Kerry.

Chambliss is going to be on FOX today. Perhaps he will be asked about Berger. I don't think he will allege that Kerry knowingly used classified information from Berger.

Bush may benefit from discrediting Clarke. If this scandal is used to smear Kerry without evidence, that may hurt Bush.

[Edit35]

We need a blanket advertising campaign in every battleground state. Which 501C organization (or whatever that number is) can produce an ad which portrays Berger taking documents and a picture of the Kerry campaign while asking ... "What was in those secret classified documents stolen by Kerry advisor Sandy Berger that was worth risking jail. Why would the Democrats (or the Kerry campaign) risk the security of the US just to score points in a political campaign." <<> Vote for President Bush, a President with integrity.

[Snapple]

This link http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/23/14102.shtml

suggests that the story about Berger may have been leaked by former Clinton White House counsel Lanny Davis.

If the Democrats leaded this right before their own convention, perhaps they are going to blame the White House. McAuliff was really quick with his FOI request, which even if it isn't honored does embarrass the Administration by suggesting that they are using the DOJ against opponents.

That is why I think it is important not to take their bait. Bush would not be drawn out on the Berger scandal.

I think the Democrats are going to make it look like Bush is using the DOJ against his political enemies.

If a Clinton operative did this, perhaps he also wants to embarrass Kerry. Perhaps it is true that the CLintons don't want Kerry to win so that Hillary can run in four years.

[Snapple]

I think that what Berger did was for for Clarke or the Clintons, not Kerry. The person suspected of leaking the Berger story, Clinton's lawyer Lanny Davis, is not pointing the fingers at White House motives. Here is a short extract about this theory and the link.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/23/14102.shtml

"Suspicions that Davis was the source of the Berger leak surfaced on Tuesday, when the National Review Online's Mark Levin noted in his column:

"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."

[Eroteme]

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."

Focus on a single document...IMHO, big mistake. Whenever the clintons point one way, look the other.

Berger did not take this incredibly rash and desperate action--which he surely knew he'd get caught at and likely do jail time for--over some "harshly critical" documents. Whatever he was after was off-the-chart radioactive. Unless the Millenium report contains such things, then that's only the diversion, the documents he wants us to focus on.

IMHO, because he knew he'd get caught, his only option was to make sure that the info he was after was never exposed. He set up a shell game....making sure everyone believed the pea was under the Millenium report. This is classic clinton MO. Divert and distract from the real smoking gun.

[Snapple]

I disagree, and here is why.

It is looking likely that Clinton's former lawyer Lanny Davis leaked this information.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/23/14102.shtml

Now this Davis is pointing fingers at the motives of the Bush Administration for making this come out right before the Democratic Convention. And McAuliff is instantly sending the White House FOI requests. To me it looks like they are doing damage control and blaming Bush.

I think the Clinton Democrats are using this scandal to make it appear that Bush is using the DOJ against political opponents.

I think Kerry probably didn't have anything to do with this. If he had known earlier about Berger's felonious fingers, I don't think Kerry would have let Berger be part of his circle. Too risky.

The fact that Kerry just removed his homeland security policies from his site suggests to me that he just found out about Berger's legal issues. Had he found out sooner, the site would have come down sooner.

I think that instead of taking this issue up to discredit Kerry, we should be quiet and let the FBI and DOJ do its job. If Republicans exploit Berger's problems, the Democrats will make it look like the White House leaked the info before the convention and is using the DOJ for political purposes.

[Snapple]

You write, "Whenever the clintons point one way, look the other."

I agree. I don't know if you saw it or not, but Clinton was on TV the other day and did point the other way when he laughed this off.

He basically said that Berger was a messy, disorganized person. That's where Clinton was pointing---not to this document that the FBI has. [Apparently they do have this document and are going to publish it.]

Clinton's dissembling is really not very convincing to anyone who has ever used the archives. There is no way you can accidentally take documents. The whole system is very tight and prevents genuine accidents.

Berger stole the papers. At first I thought that he wanted to have the documents while he was writing. Sitting in the Archive is a real pain. This is still possible.

However, some news accounts suggest he was asking the guards to leave during phone calls and also going to the restroom often. This suggests he was flushing documents.

I think he was desparate to HIDE something--not SHOW it to Kerry. The document that the FBI has is fairly revealing because it shows that Clarke was two-faced; critical of Clinton in private and complimentary in his book and before the Commission.

Of course, the FBI seem to have this document because they are going to declassify and publish it. I assume they got it back from Berger. Or I suppose Berger destroyed that but someone had a copy.

After Archive guards saw what Berger was up to, the Archive security marked the documents Berger was looking at; so they know what is missing.

You write, "Berger did not take this incredibly rash and desperate action--which he surely knew he'd get caught at and likely do jail time for--over some "harshly critical" documents. Whatever he was after was off-the-chart radioactive. Unless the Millenium report contains such things, then that's only the diversion, the documents he wants us to focus on."

I think Berger is a pretty arrogant person who thought he was smarter than the guards. I think this Millenium Report will be very embarrassing. We will know soon, because the FBI is going to declassify it and it will be published.

[TigersEye]

Yeah. There are all kinds of theories aren't there? Thanks for the links.

[nopardons]

For someone,who keeps pontificating on this site,you do keep MISSING THE POINT of EVERYTHING!

Clinton is no longer the president,so he can no longer "manage" things.HE HAS NO POWER.He can't threaten anybody,he can't fire anybody,he can't send the FBVI,IRS,or Janet Reno(who also is no longer in power!)after anybody.

Just WHAT seems to be your problem comprehending the written word?

And now throwing up what was on Kerry's web site,when it was YOU who wanted it off FR,is just more of your circular thinking and obfuscation.

[js1138]

I can accept Kerry's assertion that he was completely clueless. But he has a clue now. He has clinton's own words that Bill knew long ago. Not to mention the simple fact that the Berger advisors and attorneys are all clinton cronies.

So now that Kerry has a clue -- namely that clinton hung him out to dry -- Kerry's reputation as a leader depends on his response. LOL.

And yes, Lanny Davis was the leak. He was asked point blank if he was the leak and said "none of your business." He didn't even bother with a non-denial denial.

[ChEng]

Fact: Missing files (maybe file) pertain to the Millennimun bomb plot "after action report"...Most of us know of the MBP story right? Great action by a border agent, grabbing Amhed Ressam with the goods, saves LAX, end story, right? Now ask, ask yourself twice, why, why would Berger make off with the after action report of what seemed a victory for the good guys? The reason can be found in the communications between the U.S. Embassy, Dublin, Ireland and Washington on and about December 21-23, 1999..I suspect published accounts of those messages would hang Messrs. Berger, Clark and Clinton from a tall tree.
In December of 1999 agents of the FBI and RCMP tracked an Algerian, Hamid Aich, Canadian roommate of Amhed Ressam, to a safe house in Dublin. Aich is suspected by the FBI of being the bomb maker and brains behind the Mellennium plot. Once in Dublin said agents put the strong arm on the timid Irish Garda (Irish national police) to raid the safe house, which they did, nabbing Aich and four others (12/21/99, Irish Times). Almost immediately Irish government officials(politicos) got wind of the arrests and lodged a protest(upset that FBI agents were operating on Irish soil, remember this was pre 9/11) with the U.S. Embassy, stating that said agents were harassing poor asylum seekers. The response from the Embassy (and CIA?) was that they had no knowledge of Aich nor any reason for his continued detention. The Irish promptly released all five over protests from the FBI and Mounties. The Irish press reporting that they had been released with compliance of U.S. officials.
One might ask at this point, why didn't the Feds get together with the Embassy (State Dept. and CIA) and square everything beforehand? Well, there was this little matter of the "wall". Much better to work with the local cops and get things done than to call in the "suits" and evoke the "wall".
Once Aich and company were scattered (he much later to Afghanistan) a review of computer discs, seized in the raid, revealed that Aich was not only a master bomb builder but bim Laden's paymaster in Europe, in reality Al Quseda's European CFO!! Before fleeing, he spent almost a year in Ireland under the protection of the Garda..(remember pre 9/11).
WE HAD HIM AND THEY LET HIM GO!! He is now suspected of being (the late?) bin Laden's second in command.
While Berger may be able to explain away the various attempts to target the elusive bin Laden, I doubt he (and company) can explain the escape of Hamid Aich, but they'll try (blame it on the Irish).... Try to find mention of Aich or Ireland in the 9/11 report. Maybe Sandy got away with one!
Above is compiled from articles in the Irish Times, Irish Independent, Telegraph(UK) and other...

[Snapple]

You wrote that Senator Kerry "has clinton's own words that Bill knew long ago."

Do you mean that Clinton knew about Berger's legal problems long ago?

Do you have a link about that you could post. I hadn't seen that. Are you sure that is right?

If true, that is very interesting. I am sure Kerry didn't know because he would have dumped Berger. Who would want an adviser who was being investigated by the FBI for stealing documents?

If Clinton knew about Berger's problems and didn't tell Kerry, that's not very nice, is it?!

[Snapple]

That is very interesting.

[js1138]

Do you mean that Clinton knew about Berger's legal problems long ago?

I don't have a specific clinton quote, but clinton's cronies were alerted right away. Do you really think the clinton's wouldn't work together on strategy?

And berger said he was in the archives at the request of the "clinton administration".

So yes, I believe clinton knew and withheld the info from Kerry.

[Snapple]

Berger was in the archives because he was asked to get together the information for the 9-11 Commission on terrorism for the Clinton administration, since Berger had been in charge of National Security.

You write that "clinton's cronies were alerted right away."

What do you mean right away? You think that Clinton knew about Berger's troubles when they first happened? Do you have any evidence for why you think this?