Posted on 07/22/2004 3:18:21 PM PDT by Steven W.
46. NSC email, Clarke to Kerrick,“Timeline,”Aug. 19, 1998; Samuel Berger interview (Jan. 14, 2004). We did not find documentation on the after-action review mentioned by Berger. On Vice Chairman Joseph Ralston’s mission in Pakistan, see William Cohen interview (Feb. 5, 2004). For speculation on tipping off the Taliban, see, e.g., Richard Clarke interview (Dec. 18, 2003).
And to what does footnote (46) refer? On p. 117, Chapter 4, we find this:
Later on August 20, Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea fired their cruise missiles. Though most of them hit their intended targets, neither Bin Ladin nor any other terrorist leader was killed. Berger told us that an after-action review by Director Tenet concluded that the strikes had killed 20–30 people in the camps but probably missed Bin Ladin by a few hours. Since the missiles headed for Afghanistan had had to cross Pakistan, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was sent to meet with Pakistan’s army chief of staff to assure him the missiles were not coming from India. Officials in Washington speculated that one or another Pakistani official might have sent a warning to the Taliban or Bin Ladin. (46)
I hope they got subpoenas for his cell phone records.
Above TS. To access TS "code-word" classified material, you need a TS clearance, a demonstrable "need to know" (established by someone other then yourself), and a specific clearance for that particular "code-word" program.
IOW, someone with only a TS clearance, but NO "code-word" clearance, can ONLY access TS (or lower) classified material which he "needs to know" about. He cannot access any "code-word" classified material. Someone with TS clearance AND clearance for the program with code-word of, let say "Aardvark" (a made-up example), can access TS (or lower) material of non-code-word classified programs, AND material that is code-word "Aardvark," but not of other code-word programs for which he isn't cleared.
So who could/would have authorized Berger? Sounds as though someone had to help him gain access.
One would presume that his clearances from his days as Nat'l Security Advisor were still in effect, and he was apparently Clinton's representative selected to review the classified material in order for Clinton to make recommendations to the 9/11 Commission as to what documents it might find insightful. Thus, Berger's "need to know" is most likely established by the 9/11 Commission.
It's not like he walked in off the street one day at the National Archives, and said: "Gee, I think I'll look at some classified information..."
The more intersting question, which I have yet to hear anyone ask is this: in the wake of his serial willful pilfering of classified documents, have Sandy Berger's clearances been revoked?
They should have been lifted the day after he was caught having removed classified material from the facility.
Lastly, it's time to call a spade a spade: what Berger did constitutes espionage, until proven otherwise. For all we know, Berger may be the "Kim Philby" of the Potomac, even though he behaved more like "Inspector Clouseau"....
Does the report say thin about the millenium affair also?
I have not yet seen that posted.
That's exactly right. Everyone who has access to compartmentalized security information knows the rules. Berger seems to have known them, since he bothered to try to distract the guards and stuffed the documents in his pants to smuggle them out.
The interesting twist in this case is that while most espionage cases entail giving information to those who shouldn't have it, this one might be keeping information from those (the 9/11 committee) who should have it.
Or did he give it to the Kerry campaign? That's closer to traditional espionage cases.
I wouldn't rule out the former hypothesis.
Does anyone know for sure that Berger was NOT on Saddam's payroll, or Osama's, or Beijing's ?
Speaking of which, why were no Iraqi spies in the US government ever found and arrested after Saddam was booted? He had the money (Oil-for-Food embezzlement), he had the opportunity (12 years), and he had the motive. Do you really believe that for the 12 years that we were the biggest threat to his well-being and continued power, he never bothered to recruit spies inside the US Government?
And if he DID recruit spies inside the US government, surely we got all the info on them when we occupied the Iraqi Intelligence Services Offices after the war, and analyzed the documents, the records, the computer files. So how come there's never been a mention of arresting any spies who worked for Saddam?
My suspicion is that it's because we've been watching them, to see who else was in on the conspiracy to commit treason.
Time will tell whether or not Sandy Berger is Saddam's "Kim Philby"......
Live snake up his ass.
< /wishful thinking mode>
I'll try to explain it to you.
There are four levels of classification for government documents: Unclassified, Confidential, Secret and Top Secret. These can all have special handling categories like FOUO (For Official Use Only) or SPECAT (SPEcial CATegory).
There are also materials that are referred to as SCI (Special Compartmented Information). In intelligence circles, these compartments refer to a method of collection of said intelligence, amongst other things. Each compartment gets a code word associated with it. These codewords are, by themselves, classified Confidential. To even have access to SCI material, a person has to have a special background investigation and be briefed into each compartment.
So, when someone refers to something as Top Secret "codeword", it's because it's SCI and even the codeword is classified.
As an aside, these codewords can apply to material of any classification, not just Top Secret.
It seems that the rules don't apply to politicians. I was debriefed from all SCI compartments and had my clearance downgraded on the very day I no longer had "need to know".
"...code-word of, let say "Aardvark" (a made-up example),..."
Good explanation. Unless things have changed, the code-word itself is classified.
Depends on who steals them. You or me, probably 20 years. An insider like Berger will walk and end up with a high paying job with some mega foundation or a wall street firm. On the side he'll give speeches where he is feted and hailed as a hero of the left.
I'm not kidding, either.
I hadn't heard that. If he did that, it really should be a treason charge.
That's all a little too "tin foil hat" for my tastes. I really think Berger was just trying to protect his reputation and that of the clintoons.
They thoroughly messed up on protecting us from terrorists, and if the general public knew, they'd be toast (as would most Dems).
These people are not complicated. They don't have any agenda other than personal power.
Isn't Jonathan Pollard serving a life sentence? I think the docs he stole were "only" Top Secret, and he gave them to Israelis.
Berger better pray that Kerry gets elected, because I think he will be in jail until the next Dem is in the WH.
Whenever I get my darn paper written, I am going to have to print all these threads out.
While this action report is DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE THAT BERGER ADMITS TO TAKING, it could be that he took this one as well, it just has not been discovered as being stolen by him.
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.