SAVAGE WAS RIGHT -- MISSING WOMAN REPLACES SANDY BERGER'S DOCUMENT THEFT STORY

Yup, Savage was right: he predicted last week that the media would go overboard covering a missing woman, and sure enough .. sadly, but sure enough .. here comes a missing woman in Utah and a suspicious husband. They are purposely avoiding discussing the acts of possible treason and theft of classified documents by the Bergler ..even Geraldo .. it's disgusting.

""When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded." Sandy Berger

A very telling Washington Times editorial, posted on the WhiteWater FREEPER boards from 1999:

It's time for National Security Adviser Sandy Berger to go. Not only has his knee-jerk reaction to the Chinese espionage scandal — "We're talking about breaches of security that happened in the mid 1980s" when Ronald Reagan was president — been tired and old. But his explanation for what happened on his watch after the security breach became known is as disingenuous as any explanation ever offered by the Clinton White House. Which is saying something.

If Mr. Berger's performance March 14 on NBC's Meet the Press is any guide, is it any wonder why the White House is fighting so desperately to keep classified as much of the Cox committee's report on Chinese espionage as possible? That report, endorsed unanimously by Democratic and Republican committee members alike, catalogued China's successful efforts during the last 20 years to acquire — by legal and illegal means — the most sensitive U.S. military technology, damaging U.S. national security interests in the process.

Mr. Berger asserted that the initial briefing about Chinese espionage which he received at the White House in April 1996 was "very general" and "very preliminary" According to Mr. Berger, that briefing, which was conducted by a group of senior Energy Department officials, including its chief counterintelligence officer, Notra Trulock, merely "indicated" that there was "some evidence" that China "may have" obtained "in some fashion" sensitive nuclear weapons information. "At that stage," Mr. Berger told NBC's Tim Russert, "we did not know who, we did really not know how, and we really did not know what" Later, Mr. Berger told Mr. Russert, "The FBI hadn't even begun its investigation. We did not have a suspect. We did not know at this point what they had gotten."

In fact, however, Mr. Trulock had begun his counterintelligence investigation of China's theft of one of America's most advanced warheads 12 months before briefing the White House. In late 1995, moreover, the FBI had already begun its own investigation, poring over travel and work records of lab scientists and building a list of five suspects. By February 1996, two months before briefing the White House, Energy Department counterintelligence officers had identified one particular suspect, a scientist, who "stuck out like a sore thumb," as one official told the New York Times. Before visiting the White House in April, Mr. Trulock briefed Paul Redmond, the CIA's chief spy hunter who had unmasked Aldrich Ames. Mr. Redmond considered Mr. Trulock's briefing, which was replete with charts and graphs, to be anything but "very general;' as Mr. Berger characterized Mr. Trulock's subsequent White House briefing.

It is instructive to compare Mr. Redmond's anguished reaction — "This is going to be just as bad as the Rosenbergs" who gave the Soviets the secrets to the atomic bomb, he recalled saying at the time — with Mr. Berger's laid back reaction to what he perceived to be a "very general" and "very preliminary'' briefing. Mr. Berger also asserted that the FBI began "a thorough formal investigation" within a month and "the CIA was [also] investigating this" In fact, however, by the end of 1996, so little progress had been made by the FBI that Energy Department officials were convinced the FBI had assigned too few resources to the case. And, according to Mr. Redmond, the FBI had not been updating the CIA's counterintelligence office.

Mr. Berger also asserted on March 14 that, upon learning of China's nuclear espionage, the administration "imposed and forced the strictest controls on China of any country except those for which we have embargoes, such as Libya" In fact, the administration did the opposite. In February 1998, the same month President Clinton belatedly ordered greater security measures at the nation's weapons labs, he ignored strenuous objections from the Justice Department, which was investigating Loral Corp. for an unauthorized technology transfer to China. Overruling the Justice Department, the president granted Loral a waiver for official transfers of essentially the same missile expertise to China that the company was being criminally investigated for giving to China without authorization in 1996. This expertise would help China build rockets that could carry multiple, independently targetable warheads — the very type of warhead whose design China had stolen and about which Mr. Berger had been briefed nearly two years earlier.

Mr. Berger also claimed that the order signed by President Clinton in February 1998, which mandated increased security measures at the labs, "made the changes I believe are necessary." But many of these changes, including recommendations made by the FBI long before Mr. Clinton's February 1998 directive, were not instituted until October 1998, after Bill Richardson became Secretary of Energy.

Moreover, there is a serious question even today whether security at the labs has been sufficiently strengthened. "Security at the Department of Energy [which runs the labs] has not improved" a recently retired U.S. counterintelligence official told Bill Gertz of The Washington Times last week. "Counterintelligence is poor." Rep. Christopher Cox, who chaired the select committee investigating China's acquisition of U.S. military technology, told Mr. Gertz that there is a "lack of adequate counterintelligence at out national laboratories, and, frankly, throughout the government."

Indeed, it was Hazel O'Leary, Mr. Clinton's first secretary of energy, who slashed the department's security and counterintelligence budgets. "Hazel O'Leary hated intelligence and security [efforts]" the recently retired counterintelligence official told Mr. Gertz. "She had this naive view there were no threats." Mr. Berger also rejected the claim by Congress that the administration failed to inform it in an adequate and timely fashion of China's espionage at the labs.

"Congress was informed, I believe, before I was in '96" Mr. Berger told Mr. Russert. "And I believe [Congress] has been briefed more than 16 times since then." That's the White House version. Here is what Rep. Norman Dicks, the ranking Democrat on both the House intelligence panel and the Cox select committee, told the New York Times: "Porter Goss" the former CIA official who chairs the House intelligence committee, "and I were not properly briefed about the dimensions of the problem. It was compartmentalized and disseminated over the years in dribs and drabs so that the full extent of the problem was not known until the Cox committee."

Indeed, it was Mr. Dicks who, having become so impatient at the administration's inadequate response to the Los Alamos laboratory spy scandal, approached Mr. Richardson and told him action needed to be taken immediately. Finally, the suspect who "stuck out like a sore thumb" three years earlier was given a polygraph test and found to be deceptive in February. On March 6, the New York Times reported the details of the scandal, and the suspect was fired two days later. Earlier, the Energy Department had for more than a year disregarded an FBI recommendation that the suspect's access to classified information be restricted. Here is Mr. Berger's disingenuous take on this: "[T]he secretary of Energy made a decision based on various factors relating to this employee that he should be terminated;' he told Mr. Russert on March 14.

It is clear Mr. Berger has no credibility. Rather than cooperation, he offers blame-shifting. Rather than credible explanations, he offers excuses. His utterly disingenuous remarks constitute yet another administration stonewall hiding the truth. If this is the kind of advice the president is getting from his national security adviser, the citizens of this country are being very badly served. "

Thanks, Sandy ... rarely has someone in one of the highest positions in U.S. government exercised so much personal hubris and possessed such scandalous and debached character and consistently and repeatedly put the security of America and her people at such risk.

Berger was on the front lines of the fight against terrorism during the Clinton Administration --responding to terrorist attacks against our embassies in Africa and elsewhere and marshalling the resources of the United States Government in the effort to strike at Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network. Based on his direct and recent experience, Berger is in a unique position to explain to audiences the nature of the terrorist groups that have attacked us and the challenges and choices ahead for the United States. He will describe those clearly and candidly and answer the wide-ranging questions on the minds of the American people as America fights back.

As a leader who has operated uniquely at the intersection of international politics and international business for the last thirty years, Berger has helped shape the response of the United States and international business to the most sweeping force of our times—globalization. From dealing with the Asian financial crisis to driving U.S. negotiations with China as National Security Advisor to advising top global corporations as a leading international lawyer, Berger's insights about the impact of globalization on government, economics and business are invaluable. "Globalization is not a choice we make," says Berger, "it is an overriding fact whose benefits we must harness and whose consequences we must address."

I can't remember them having multiple orgasms over the timing of the leak of Bush's drunk driving record three days before the election or the indictment of Caspar Weinberger on the eve of the election.

information will continue to drip out over time. I'm cautiously optimistic that we will get the facts through determination and patience.

Agree with this - this could very well happen - but the time frame will be set for AFTER the election -

The media will do their damnest to make sure of that - (via overtones to the prosecutor of the "Ken Starr" treatment if done any sooner)

JOcko is your remark meant as sarcasm, if so it is silly. On any given day somewhere in the country there is a missing woman of some kind. The media can choose when to make it a big deal and when not to.

And don't forget, the Congressional hearings will be starting up at some point.

Good point. The Kerry campaign is undoubtably trying to figure out how to answer questions about Sandy Berger pleading the fifth.

Isn't that the truth!! - The media in this Country are evil (and that isn't to harsh of a term....anymore - they are truly an evil group of people).

And don't forget, the Congressional hearings will be starting up at some point. Has anybody heard when the hearings will start?

Um, yeah just like the Senate got that vote on "the marriage amendment" to come out - They couldn't even get a vote on the floor -

Don't hold your breath on any meaningful "hearings" - Hell, they have already said bowing down to the 9/11 commission and all their advice is the practically the ONLY thing Congress will be focused on from here on out -

I think it's very convenient for the media to immediately point its cameras AWAY from any Dem scandal and focus on the "missing (insert whoever)" or "the(insert_____, professional athlete) latest alleged crime" purposely to distract and evade scrutiny of a topic that makes them so very 'uncomfortable'.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when they're having news content meetings .. bet they've got hoardes of stringers scrambling for any other possible crime and missing persons stories to cover for this purpose.

They must be informed that we're on to them.

Dontcha love this part??? And old Hazel rears her ugly head again just recently, having caused such a disturbance on an airline flight that the FBI was called... stripes don't change much, do they? The arrogance of these people is mindnumbing.

"Indeed, it was Hazel O'Leary, Mr. Clinton's first secretary of energy, who slashed the department's security and counterintelligence budgets. "Hazel O'Leary hated intelligence and security [efforts]" the recently retired counterintelligence official told Mr. Gertz. "She had this naive view there were no threats." Mr. Berger also rejected the claim by Congress that the administration failed to inform it in an adequate and timely fashion of China's espionage at the labs."

Yes...I'd rather have the drip-drip-drip approach also. Let the story stretch out over time, energized now and then by new facts with a nice indictment to top it all off.

Yummy!

"I expect we'll hear that a grand jury is issuing subpoenas soon..."

I don't understand this. Why is a grand jury needed? I would think the DOJ would just need to file charges and go to trial.

I wish it wasn't hal...
but it clearly is.

the only thing about watergate that made it work for the liberals who attacked nixon via it's messiness, is that the hated NIXON was their target. had it been hitlery and her livingstone scumscukers and mudrakers, it would have gone nowhere. period.

the bastards LOVE clintong and his kneepad addicted, "spit or swallow, I wanna swallow" buddies and buddettes. that includes bergers "i got it in my pants baby" act.

"China had been using New Zealand as an "intel" base."

Oh, this is good! We use(d) New Zealand for a project ECHELON point focused from the Far East.

http://lambda.eu.org/6xx/602-e.html

"The media can choose when to make it a big deal and when not to."

I agree. The media practically create reality for many Americans. News is news only when they decide it's news. Events that threaten their liberal agenda did not occur when they decide they didn't occur.

You needn't worry, Bergler is going to prison. When something comes up, and several will on this story, Bergler will get the press because of who he is. In the meantime, life goes on, and there are other stories out there. A president to be elected, and a few items of foreign affairs...

Yea. And don't forget the "Code Pink" activities in trying to Drown Governor Arnold in "wymmin's" issues. Timing? Didn't bother the Dems at all; they were quite pleased with themselves.

The real question is this:

Does Rita Cosby have any exclusive 'sources' on this story? When is she gonna breathlessly inform of us of some minor factoid vaguely related to a murder case that shouldn't even be making regional, much less national headlines?

Gary Condit. I remember this.. And really, it wasn't all that long ago. It's been repeatedly overlain by the media overkill on these other missing/murdered women. There is indeed a pattern. But of what?

I'd wager you dollars to donuts there are more missing (or murdered) MEN on a regular basis, than women. Most curious..

A pal of mine in talk radio did a great deal of time discussing Echelon. However, it seemed to me, back then, the only ones upset about Echelon were primarily conservatives; United States LIBERALS SAID NOTHING. Now, witness the Patriot Act. Liberals are in hyper-accelerated moosh screech.

Frankly, my biggest problem with Echelon was that it was being done under the Clinton Admin. That put a shiver up my spine, alright. (thanks for the link)

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.