Posted on 07/24/2004 9:05:32 PM PDT by STARWISE
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:
"Topic
White Water Sandy Berger must go
Washington Times National Weekly Edition March 22-28, 1999 Editorial
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.
From the Bergler's bio at Washington Speaker's Bureau:
"America Fights Back: The War Against Terrorism
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.
Globalization: The Changing World and The Road to Success
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."
==============
Makes you wanna vomit, doesn't it????
I believe the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires an indictment from a grand jury.
On another note, however, something big had also gone down JUST before the media went hyper on the Chandra Levy case. I can see what it was in far distant corner of my mind, but for the life of me I can just snag it forward to consciousness. Yet.
Makes you wanna vomit, doesn't it????
Maybe they should look in sandys pants
I understand. I just thought the China link to be facinating. I don't know which direction. Was Echelon used to "look at China", as I understood it, or was Echelon used to "hide China", aka Clinton/Berger. You just threw out a comment that brought back some history threads.
I feel, as a 10 year USAF veteran and tech rep on highly classified projects in aerospace, Berger did something more than protecting some files from the 9/11 panel. It had to be big. Like insurance (for him) to highly classified documents involving him and Clinton to China. BIG, BIG, BIG!
Sorry to change the subject, but a key word did it!
Lanny Davis knew his game when he admitted this was the best week of 52 to leak this story, fein outrage over the "timing" and watch as other stories wash it away. Only a Federal indictment will force this back into the limelight, and that seems unlikely.
The Watergate story went cold for many weeks after the burglary.
Savage is good for that,a regular vomitorium.
A quick search calls for a grand jury in civil cases, not for criminal/espionage cases.
Wasn't Clinton's impeachment going on at that time? I remember Condit was on some committee having to vote on it, unless my memory is totally Swiss cheese .. which it could be.
BINGO! You are EXACTLY right. Thank YOU! YES! Clinton's impeachment trial was going on at the time. And yes, Condit was ON a particular, very specific committee...
BINGO! You are EXACTLY right. Thank YOU! YES! Clinton's impeachment trial was going on at the time. And yes, Condit was ON a particular, very specific committee...
How absolutely Clintonian. Berger is sent by, um, someone, to um, borrow top secret documents -- some of which Berger "accidentally" destroyed. Berger is caught and an investigation ensues. Many months later, Berger's people leak the story, and the Democrats blame the leak on Republicans, noting the timing of the leak. The media eagerly pick up on and repeat the Democrat spin, until accusations that the Republicans leaked something for political gain become the whole story, and the allegations against Berger are virtually forgotten. But the media have to abandon even this, because any remaining slight inkling of the allegation against Berger is damaging. So after a few days Berger is forgotten but there are plenty of leading stories about murders in flyover country, the latest diet craze, and any day now there will be stories about how wonderful Edward's hair looks.
Oh, and the leak compromises the investigation and we never learn exactly why Berger took the documents, and the Republicans say nothing for fear of being accused of sounding "partisan." The scamming ability of the Clintonistas is unsurpassed.
Are you using MSN Search?
Excerpt from J. D. Hayworth floor speech March 29, 1999
"Sandy Berger Worked for the Chinese Government
Washington Weekly
Monday, March 29, 1999 Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ)
Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), House of Representatives, 3/23/99
------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to bring you news from home. In my case home is the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona, a district in square mileage almost the size of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and now with the explosive growth in the Grand Canyon State a district that is home to well nigh one million Americans.
From the pages of the Holbrook Tribune-News, indeed from the editorial page of March 19, the headline reads, 'This Story Needs More Attention.' Paul Barger, the publisher of the Holbrook Tribune-News, writes, and I quote, 'For some time there have been reports circulating regarding the possible theft of highly classified missile secrets from Los Alamos since the 1980s. The thefts were apparently discovered in 1995, and the person allegedly involved was allowed to resign recently. The matter has been kept quiet for what seem to be political reasons.'
Paul Barger concludes, 'It is sad that so much attention is given to issues of no real import while serious matters of our national security and America's future are glossed over.' Thus, the headline from the editorial, 'This Story Needs More Attention.'
Among those who curiously seem to want to adopt a public posture of glossing over or indeed gloating in a sophomoric way about this troublesome, threatening and dangerous story, among those sadly includes the person who is the President of the United States.
At a radio and TV correspondents' dinner the other night, our own President joked that one of his favorite movies this year was, quote, Leaving Los Alamos; humor as it is defined in the last days of the 20th century. It boggles the mind.
Other matters glossed over, the past associations of the President's national security advisor. From yesterday's Washington Times on the op-ed page, Edward Timperlake and William C. Triplett, II, who coauthored the book the 'Year of the Rat,' setting forth the ample evidence of Chinese involvement in the Clinton-Gore reelection campaign in 1996, I read from their op-ed piece, headlined 'Leaks on Berger's Watch,' quoting now: 'We believe that, for the national interest, President Clinton's national security advisor Samuel Sandy Berger should resign immediately.
'For the past 6 years, Mr. Berger has presided over a failed and ultimately corrupt policy toward the Chinese military that betrays both the democratic standards of the American people and the national security of the United States. He is the classic example of the wrong person in the wrong job at the wrong time.
'Right out of the starting gate, Mr. Berger was an unfortunate choice for a national security position with the government because of his prior role as the chief Washington lobbyist for the Chinese Government's trade office.'
Let me repeat that. 'Mr. Berger was an unfortunate choice for a national security position with the government because of his prior role as the chief Washington lobbyist for the Chinese Government's trade office.
================
Good Lord .. it'll be 100 years before the filth, deceit, treason and selling out of America and her safety by this pack of rats will be undone.
I'm praying Bush doesn't allow his good intentions for non-partisanship stand in the way of persuing justice and doing right for us and our security and sovereignty. He needs to encourage the punishment of serious crimes by the Clintonistas .. from the Chinese secrets to Los Alamos to the latest cheap trick from the Bergler ....and to who knows what else will be discovered as the years unfold ...it is truly sickening.
I don't care WHAT Hillary has in those damn FBI files ... secrets and skeletons be damned. Somebody needs to say "s**w the press and the scandal, I'm not gonna take it anymore .. time for truthtelling ...." PERIOD.
- - - - - - - Even after bin Laden’s departure from the area, CIA officers hoped he might return, seeing the camp as a magnet that could draw him for as long as it was still set up. The military maintained readiness for another strike opportunity. On March 7, 1999, (Richard) Clarke called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and bin Laden. Clarke later wrote in a memorandum of this conversation that the call had been approved at an interagency meeting and cleared with the CIA.
When the former bin Laden unit chief found out about Clarke’s call, he questioned CIA officials, who denied having given such clearance. Imagery confirmed that less than a week after Clarke’s phone call the camp was hurriedly dismantled, and the site was deserted. CIA officers, including Deputy Director for Operations Pavitt, were irate. ‘Mike’ thought the dismantling of the camp erased a possible site for targeting bin Laden.
The media killed this story within the first 48 hours - they made the premise the "timing" and saying it was being "politicized"
Journalism is nonfiction ("not admittedly fiction") entertainment.Journalism can be spoken of as an entity like the mafia rather than as competing businesses because journalists systematically limit the competition among themselves to superficial elements such as the individual reporters and editors. When it comes to the main event - to "what is important" - journalism is a mutual admiration society.
Journalism hides the freedom it actually has in story selection behind rules like "if it bleeds it leads" and "there's nothing more useless than yesterday's newspaper." But in fact journalism controls the national agenda - and journalism can rehash Watergate at any time - for any reason or no reason. Story selection is the whole game.
- You are objective as long and I am objective.
- If you ever say I am liberal,
you get your legs brokeyou are "not a journalist, not objective." And it won't be just me saying it; the whole of journalism will pile on and you will get terrible PR. And in this business we all know what bad PR can do to someone. We wouldn't want that to happen to you, would we?
- By the way, since everyone knows it isn't a serious accusation, it won't hurt if you call me "conservative." Just to balance out what the conservatives say about me, to position me as being objective. I'll do the same for you. Thanks. Just as long as we neither one of us mean it. 'Cause if it were actually true that would bring the rest of journalism down on us like a ton of bricks.
The idea around which "objective journalism" coheres - the idea around which all of liberalism coheres - is that nothing actually matters but PR. The cavalier behavior of the entire Clinton Administration can be understood in no other way. Hazel O'Leary in charge of our nuclear secrets!! "Pants" Berger in charge of national security!
And that is why liberals never accepted the result of the 2000 election - as far as they are concerned, once Gore was declared the winner of Florida he had won the PR crown. After that, details like the law, the Constitution, and the actual votes of actual voters are irrelevant to them. And that is why liberalism tends to be actually treasonous.
Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate
Aw, heck, I was gonna answer it. :)
I think, given the number of murders that happen in America daily, the way these murders are chosen for coverage is a little odd. From my part of the country, Laci Peterson is completely irrelevant. Her husband is a nobody. Nothing about him or her is outstanding. Yet I have to hear about it everyday. Is it because they are white middle-class?
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.