Posted on 07/21/2004 7:59:22 PM PDT by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
It's better the WaPo reports it tomorrow than never.
As FReepers have already noted, this is not "new" to us - what is new is that the Washington Post is printing it. Another excerpt (severely trimmed to about 100 words to keep Jim R. out of trouble!):
"..The classified documents were sensitive enough that employees arrived on a Sunday morning to pick them up. Several days later, after he had retained Breuer as counsel, Berger volunteered that he had also taken 40 to 50 pages of notes during three visits to the Archives ... he knowingly did not show these papers to Archives officials for review before leaving.
By then, however, Archives officials had served notice that there were other documents missing. ... By January, the FBI had been brought in, and Berger found himself in a criminal investigation -- one that he chose not to tell Kerry's campaign about until this week. ..."
A trick learned from Esteemed Ambassador Wilson.
The biggest test is yet to come. Who will be the first Congresswo/man to drop the ball on this scandal. If the Republicans and Democrats don't see this through, I will be very angry. This is no time to be playing partisan politics in Washington. This is national security breaches we're talking about.
Exactly. Put him in jail. Find out what is in those missing documents.
Commando!
You are mistaking my point.
I understand that it is the information that we are safeguarding and that copies are just as good as originals in terms of information. I think that it is important that Sandy Berger do jail time for his actions because of the huge negative impact on morale that it would have on the loyal security people who work their butts off in both the Government and Aerospace industries.
What I am looking for is the motive for what Berger did. What counts is what he thought he had in his hands and whether he thought that he could destroy evidence by trashing the documents that he took out of the Reading Room.
My point is that we only have hearsay that these were copies and that the originals were safe. Sandy Berger is no fool. He had a damned good reason for what he did and I don't think we know yet want that reason was. The question of copies and originals goes to this point exactly. You can easily explain everything that Sandy Berger did using the theory that he thought he could destroy incriminating evidence by destroying the documents that he purloined. I want to know if that is what happened or even if Sandy Berger thought it could happen.
Yep, I realize that. May I remind everyone, that the WaPo isn't leading the investigation either. That's up to the Congresscritters.
Thats right. We CANNOT allow the dems to define this one. We have to stay on point.... Its about the classified, national security data, it ain't about the paper.
Sorry I forgot </sarcasm>
And the New York Times is curious whether this will impair Sandy's chances of being Sec. of State under Kerry! Puhleeze!
This is what I have been wondering about. Of the things that Berger took and didn't return, are there things that cannot be replaced? Have all versions of this Millennium report completely disappeared?
Kerry's nouth is going to be his undoing.
This is only a guess, but years of getting away with all they've always gotten away with? Arrogance, cavalier carelessness, and maybe knowing some of the employees and thinking they (I'm tying Berger to Clinton and I'm sure he invoked his name when trying to talk his way out when confronted) could be schmoozed?
I just remember that security issues during the Clinton administration were very lax indeed.
Speaking of DNC talking points, Hannity started out his radio show today with a hilarious montage of Dems and talking heads (Gergen, et al, ad nauseum) all using the EXACT SAME talking points verbiage. Dem after dem attributed Berger's actions to:
"Sloppiness"
"Sloppiness" "being sloppy"
"very sloppy"
"sloppiness"
"sloppy"
"sloppiness"
We'll see what the DNC Word of the Day is tomorrow!
Right, or we'll lose again because the Democrats played the "it's not the nature of the evidence, but the seriousness of the charge" card.
Why does it take nine months to charge somebody with an offense that they admit to commiting? I hope this isn't more of GW's failed "can't we all get along" policy.
So where does the "inadvertant" part fit in? And what about "sloppy?" It sounds to me like this doofus is trying real hard to change reality.
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.