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)
Is there a specific listing of them all somewhere online? Do we know if this action report was included? We have to keep in mind that this is not the 2000 after action report that he has admitted to taking and which has been on the news.
But, if we do not know exactly the number of docs or what docs specifically were taken, he may have taken this one as well, accounting for the doc not being found by the committee.
Might explain wy I'm having a hard time keep up with it all *L*
Has there been an offical comment about this investigation yet?
Let's not speculate on this.
Berger took the docs. That is proven. He stuffed them in his socks according to eyewitnesses, though he denies it. He did this on several different occasions, not once like he claims. The commission, meticulous in its protection of its documents, can't find an essential document that the Clinton people referred to (obviously they would not refer to a non-existent document). But, now it is gone.
Postulation: Berger may have taken this doc as well, but we do not know for certain.
Let's try to stick to the matter at hand. Wild speculation that Berger is somehow in league with Saddam or something is insane IMO....there is no evidence so far of this. Let's try to stay respectable on this so we can keep the story going instead of letting it die with wild conspiracy theories without evidence.
Tee hee hee.
It is confusing as heck trying to follow it all.
Endless speculation tossed with some interesting facts here and there.
All I know is Drudge had a quote from Bush saying the investigation was a very serious matter.
World Mag supposedly also has a source inside the Justice Dept. saying this is not the first time they have found Berger mishandling docs...in other words, he may have stolen docs in the past as well.
But, I think the World Mag site was so overrun from Drudge hits it has been kicked off the net.
Amazing how that works, isn't it? That's a huge question for me: how do these guys leave office yet still have access to classified material?
I love the fact that he was at the Archives looking at "his notes". I can just see what would have happened to me if I had tried taking notes of TS/SCI material out of the SCIF
I guess the MPs would have just said, "So, are those classified notes in your sock or you just happy to see me?"
Sorry to disagree, however, Clinton doesn't care about his reputation, it has already been sealed in the history books and now he just plays it for all it is worth. The general public knows in their heart of hearts that most of this happened on HIS watch, and he knows they don't care that they still love him and as long as Bush is around to blame, far better. Nope something that will send him to prison is in those documents and at this point I think we can not begin to conceive what it is.
Your missing the point I'm trying to make: if any ordinary schmuck had done what Berger has done, he'd be arrested for suspicion of espionage, and if it later turns out he was doing it for other reasons, then so be it, he won't be charged with espionage. But the presumption, when someone intentionally steals TS code-word documents, ands sneaks them, and his notes based there on (which are also automatically TS code word classified) out of the secure facility, knowing that to do so is a felony of the gravest nature, is that they are a spy and are committing espionage.
I don't see any valid reason to give Berger the benefit of a doubt that would not enure to an ordinary citizen caught committing the same act. The presumptive suspicion should, is, and ought to be that we are dealing with a spy, until proven otherwise.
Besides, where are the Iraqi spies inside the US government? Why have they not been arrested?
I know a guy who got busted for transmitting SCI on a circuit that was only cleared TS.
Washington, D.C. just makes me ill.
"...are like the crown jewels of national security. "
Wow. And they inadvertantly got crammed down a guy's underdrawers and later destroyed.
I'm really impressed with security. (Do I really have to close my sarcasm tag?)
One question they oughta ask Mr. Burglar:
"Okay, Sandy, we all had a big yock-yock over this. Now seriously, where are the documents now?"
What POSSIBLE answer can he give?
1. "I don't know."
2. "I destroyed them."
3. "My dog ate them."
4. ????
That question MUST be asked, and all of us deserve to hear the answer.
He better face charges.
See my reply at #68.
I really think Berger was just trying to protect his reputation and that of the clintoons.
The problem with that explanation is that it requires that the documents he filched be ORIGINALS; otherwise, swiping them doesn't protect anyone. And it makes no sense for the National Archives to hand out originals when copies would suffice. So, unless there is definitive information that the documents were ORIGINALS, of which there are NO OTHER COPIES, the "Cover-up an embarrassment/protecting reputation" theory doesn't hold water. Plus, sneaking his notes out would do nothing to obliterate the document record.
Ergo, Berger had to have some other compelling reason to act like an amateur "Inspector Clouseau"..... and espionage, whether for profit or because of blackmail, could provide the incentive for his behavior.
For the moment, it is nothing more than an hypothesis....
.
.
.
.
5) "On advice of counsel, I decline to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me...."
While in Korea we had a guy get busted for leaving a document classified CONFIDENTIAL/NOFORN out where a KATUSA could have seen it. Yet that same KATUSA had a Secret level clearance working in the S-3 shop.
Exactly. Which is why it frosts the hell out of me that Berger looks like he will get a pass.
His excuses don't matter. His reasons don't matter. Anyone that handles classified material knows what he did is illegal, not to mention is just common sense.
He needs to be charged.
Now that Stephen Hawking has refuted his black hole theory, http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040722-121158-5507r , we'll need a new term to describe what happened to the national security data inputted during Clinton's presidency.
x42 sent him in there to go through the documents that *should* be presented to the 9/11 Commission.
The Justice Department attorney said [even when the defendant claims it's one of those gosh darn Ooopsies] that conviction gets you prison time.
You are certainly right that anybody not in govt. would have been tried and sentenced to hard time at this point. But, Berger has gotten off so far due to his connections.
I hope he won't evade the law in the end.
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.