Stolen Info Suspected in Kerry Port Security Speech; Burglar NOT "Informal" Advisor

Rush Limbaugh ^ | 7-21-04 | Rush

[hope]

Listen to Rush…
(…reveal the research that shows Berger wasn't an informal Kerry advisor)

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: From the top, Clinton on down sets the tone for this. I think that's an excellent point, which next takes us to Senator Kerry because Senator Kerry hired this guy, Sandy Berger, to be an advisor. Now we're finding out -- no, now we're hearing, big difference -- we are hearing from the Kerry campaign, (Kerry sing-song voice) "Uh, he was just an infooormal advisooor. I never even saaaw him. I never spoke to him. He rode in the SUVs owned by the faaamily, but they're not mine. I never saw him."

Well, we did a little research here, and Sandy Berger was not "an informal advisor." It wasn't until Sandy Berger started stuffing his shorts with classified documents that he came to be described as "an informal advisor." We have some examples from the MSNBC website a while ago: "Kerry himself makes ample use of the former president's name, advisors and record. At a Detroit union hall last week Kerry won his loudest applause when he invoked the Clinton economy. His team of economic advisors led by Roger Altman and Gene Sperling. The same goes for his foreign policy team dominated by Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security advisor, and [Ricky] Holbrooke, his UN ambassador." Key: "dominated by Sandy Berger," not "informal." That's from MSNBC.

From Foreign Policy magazine: "If a Democrat ousts U.S. President George W. Bush in November’s election, what would the nation’s new foreign policy look like? Take a glance back to the Clinton White House for a clue. Top hands from former President Bill Clinton’s ship stand out among the leading candidates’ foreign policy advisors. According to the names FP obtained from several campaigns, former U.S. National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is one of the most prominent gurus in the Kerry foreign policy team."

And from the Miami New Times: "Still, Carpenter takes pride in some fresh compromise language about to be added to the platform, a sentence on the war he'd painstakingly hashed out during a late-night meeting with several key Kerry advisers, including Sandy Berger..." See? He's working on a platform statement. "Key Kerry advisor."

May 28th, the Washington Post describes Sandy Berger as "a top Kerry advisor." (Quoting) "Kerry would not rule out preemptive strikes, nor have past presidents, but he would de-emphasize this option in stated U.S. policy. Samuel R. 'Sandy' Berger, a top Kerry adviser, said this represents a 'profound difference' between the two candidates," and not only was he "a top key advisor," he's talking to the press about Kerry's positions! This is not "informal." As I say, Berger only became an informal Kerry advisor when Kerry discovered that Berger has been stuffing things down his pants and he got to be concerned about the "timing" of leaks.

There's even more. This is from a website called Democracy Now, and I think that may be some kook left-wing fringe site. Well, I think they all are, but I think that's the website, is the point. It says here: "Democratic Party delegates including Dennis Kucinich struck a deal this weekend with representatives of John Kerry over the party's stance on the Iraq war. The deal happened this weekend at the Democratic Party Platform Convention in Miami. Kucinich's delegates withdrew their proposal for a quick withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The critical paragraph was worked out in negotiations led by Sandy Berger, who was President Bill Clinton's national security advisor," and from Axis of Logic, "Sometime after Senator Kerry's introduction to the New York Jewish community leaders, he decided his choices for envoy were inappropriate. Instead of Clinton, Carter, or Baker, he now lists Sandy Berger and Dennis Ross as the type of person he would send to the Middle East."

This is not "informal." And at Anti-War.com, another website. "In case of Kerry's victory, Dick Holbrooke would be one of the main candidates for secretary of state, which would probably result in a much more active role of the U.S. in the Balkans. Other candidates are Sandy Berger and Joe Biden." So, the New York Times is all concerned that this little snafu here will "potentially damage" Berger -- potentially, ladies and gentlemen -- damage Berger's chance to be secretary of state. There's much more just on this one little research page we did, but it wasn't informal. You know, a lot of people say, "Okay, why now? Who leaked this?" A lot of people think it came out of the justice department.

But remember, my friends, I told you that the minute John Edwards was chosen as the veep by John Kerry, that the Clinton phasers would be switched from stun to kill. Just keep this in mind. This does involve the presidential campaign, make no mistake about it -- and make no mistake about something else. The Clintons do not want Kerry-Edwards to win, for two reasons. A, 2008, but also they need to make sure that Edwards does not rise any higher in stature because he thus becomes a competitor to Mrs. Clinton -- who also, by the way, only wears pants.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: There's another aspect of this, ladies and gentlemen, the missing documents that has a lot of people interested, too, particularly Republican Senator Gordon Smith from Oregon. Now, it's interesting that Gordon Smith is out speaking on this because he never speaks on anything. He speaks on the Senate floor, but you never see Gordon Smith actually joining the political us-versus-them fray, and yet he has done so. One of the documents that Berger looked at and is missing, reviewed terrorist plots to disrupt the millennium celebrations, and it is said to pinpoint the many vulnerabilities in homeland defenses -- and this was during the Clinton administration, and that may be one of the reasons that they, the Clinton people, wanted this document out of there.

But beyond that, Senator Gordon Smith claimed that there is "a curious connection" between the removal of these documents and the Kerry press conference on port security, which took place last December 17th. Kerry also made news with a big press conference on port security back in May of this year. I got a note from one of my subscribers at 24/7, reminding me that I had said something some time ago, and I think it was about this port business, when Kerry made a big speech about our vulnerabilities. Oh, I know. This was recent. Kerry has refused intelligence briefings, remember that? Thank goodness my fertile mind comes alive. Kerry refused intelligence briefings, and he didn't care and wasn't interested in them. He had to pick his vice president, and then he had to go listen to Whoopi Goldberg's raunch fest, and yet he's out there telling us of our intelligence problems. And I remember saying, "Well, who's telling him this stuff? If he's not getting briefings from the U.S. government, where is he getting these briefings? Where is he learning about port security problems?" because he was specific about it.

And this is another area that people are interested in. Could it be that the documents that Berger took out were shared with Kerry? And that's what makes this relevant to the presidential campaign. It's one thing to take 'em out of there. It's another thing to start sharing them with people. Now, we know that Clinton knew what was in the documents. So Berger wasn't going in there to find out something for Clinton, and when he went in there he was "informal." We now know that's not true. He was a foreign policy advisor to Kerry, and he went ahead and testified before the 9/11 Commission knowing full well what he had done. So there are a lot of people wondering now if what was in the documents that Berger saw and in perhaps the documents that now cannot be found, if some of that information made its way to the Kerry campaign to give him some leg up on things. That would be another criminal violation. It's one thing to take it out of there. It's another thing to disseminate it. I think that's what's got Gordon Smith. Gordon Smith does not join these frays, but he did yesterday, along with Saxby Chambliss, the Republican senator from Georgia.

END TRANSCRIPT

[conshack]

I read the above. Berger is a bum, a symptom, more than a symptom of the fatal illness of our country. He is one of the dirtbags who has sold out this country.


And he served as NSA for whom? Need I say more?

[maro]

A self-important idiot. I sat across from him on a plane once.

[mombonn]

Berger became an "informal" advisor when he was exposed.

LOL, unfortunate choice of words.

[blanknoone]

They were original copies...I'll explain in a minute.

I disagree with the assessment these were taken to brief Kerry up. Here is why. Clarke wrote this after action review to get additional focus on counter terrorism. He wrote the wrote draft, then copies were made, numbered (copy 4 of 10 or whatever) and circulated to relevant parties for comments. Different people marked up different copies with their comments. When all the copies and comments were returned to Clarke, he finalized the review...but he was unsuccessful in getting additional focus on terrorism. Someone's comments shot down his effort, and that someone had to be high up.

I think it very likely that people made comments along the lines of 'politically not worth it' or 'too much political capital' or 'it won't be popular' or 'it won't poll well' The Clinton administration destroyed incriminating documents before they turned over power, but they didn't realize this was incriminating until after 9-11, when they could no longer destroy it. That is why Berger was stealing and destroying documents...it was not Clarke's document itself he was after, it was other people's comments on it. That is why multiple copies were stolen. The Clinton Administration knew the threat and failed to take the necessary measures because they thought it would hurt them politically. They sacrificed 3,000 Americans on the altar of Clinton's legacy. And the documents that proved it had to be destroyed.

[VOA]

bump

[Izzy Dunne]

That is why multiple copies were stolen.

I wasn't aware that multiple copies of the same doc were stolen.

I yield to your superior analysis.

[hope]

Bastards!

[No Surrender No Retreat]

Kerry is a communist, traitor, a coward and phoney. He is unfit to hold any office much less that of a US Senator. The people in Mass. must be utterly brain dead or communist to keep electing this POS and you too, Ted Jabba the Hut Kennedy. Bush/Cheney 2004

[syriacus]

Your explanation makes sense.

[devolve]

SECRET   AGENT   MAN

[justa-hairyape]

and it is said to pinpoint the many vulnerabilities in homeland defenses -- and this was during the Clinton administration, and that may be one of the reasons that they, the Clinton people, wanted this document out of there.

Yikes ! Worst case scenario: this info was passed on to the terrorists who will be theoritically attacking us just before the election. The intent obviously to elect Kerry by terrorist action (denying conservatives the ability to vote). That would be the only way Kerry is assured to win by Bergers theft.

[Matchett-PI]

Ginsberg: "Kerry Must Answer This ESSENTIAL Point Re: Sandy Berger"
My videotape of Fox Interview. ^ | 7-20-04 | Ben Ginsberg
Posted on 07/20/2004 12:06:44 PM EDT by Matchett-PI
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1174857/posts

The following excerpt was transcribed by me from my videotape of the 5 minute segment on Fox News Channel this morning entitled, "Bracing For Battle". The segment began at 9:44 AM and ended at 9:49 AM Eastern.

Guests: Richard Goodstein, Democrat strategist and former advisor to the 2000 Gore/Lieberman Campaign

Ben Ginsberg, Election law expert, and national counsel for the Bush/Cheney 2004 Campaign. (He was also counsel to Bush/Cheney during the 2000 election re-count)

Bottom line excerpt:

Ben Ginsberg: "The essential point is, did Sandy Berger, who is one of John Kerry's top advisors, get those documents - those classified documents that he was stuffing down his pants in the National Archives - to the Kerry Campaign for their benefit? And that's an essential question that needs to be answered by the Kerry Campaign. Did they benefit from documents and information they should not have had?"

===

Did you hear what Rush just said [12:50-55 AM Eastern] in relation to this? He commented on what Congressman Gordon Smith had to say on the subject also.

You can listen at his website if you don't have access to a radio. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com

If you can't listen, he will no doubt have those comments posted there later on today.

196 posted on 07/21/2004 1:06:07 PM EDT by Matchett-PI
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1174857/posts?page=196#196

[hope]

Bump!