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????
The Chandra feeding frenzy was ENDED by 9/11 IIRC. I don't remember what was hot in early summer, 2001, but maybe that time frame will help.
Obviously I remembered wrong. Chandra Levy was apparently in the spring/summer of 2002.
DOH!
I was right before. The Levy/Condit story started in spring of 2001. Her body was finally located about a year later.
I remember thinking at the time that one reason the missing person story got so much coverage was because there wasn't a lot else going on (boy, I miss those times, don't you?). So I went and looked at some old articles and didn't really see any side references to other issues. Not much help I know.
C'mon... it's sh_t like this that fuels the 'Life' channel! Grist-for-the-mill... great slop for the fat-Fannie's sitting in front of the idiot box!
Unless someone comes forward to say what was in those documents (what notes were written on them) that is so damaging, it is dead.
IIRC Berger was a lobbyist for the CHI-COMs before becoming nat'l sec advisor to the Klintoon.
There appears to be an unwritten agreement that neither party will go too deep into the scandals of the other. At most, we get show trials like that of Clinton in connection to lying under oath.
There appears to be an unwritten agreement that neither party will go too deep into the scandals of the other. At most, we get show trials like that of Clinton in connection to lying under oath.
Brought back a flood of memories for me. Some, pre-t-t-y darned scary. And yes, it might be off topic -- but Clinton railroaded a mine to sell plutonium to the Chinese. Desert Protection Act (Di-Fi), materials also sold to the Chinese. At that time in CA pub ed schools? lots of curriculum studies in "protecting our deserts". The desert was "off-limits" but the materials were being sold to China via Di-Fi's husband. Clintons giving nuclear secrets away to China. Selling of the Panama Canal. The closing of military bases in So CA. Hazel O'Leary inviting everyone into issue of national security under the byline of "Everyone is nice these days because the current US Admin are such groovy people.."
And, lastly -- I perfectly concur with you that the Berger / Archive incidences have got me worried -- Like you, I think these were big. Big Big Big. China now has nuclear powered subs. Russia and France had been in a deal to sell some superarms to China -- VP Cheney paid China a visit..
Nah. IT's not off subject, IMHO. Always, women, involved to cover up and/or divert the matter.
It was Newsmax, using sources from elsewhere, who reported that China had been using New Zealand as their "listening" base. And this was AFTER all the above facts. And just before or immediately afterwards, Clinton "appointed" Carol Mosely-Braun as ambassador to New Zealand. And after it was very clear that CMB was a petty thief (embezzlement) -- certain her "Mel" man was.
Thank you for chiming in; I may just have to go digging myself -- something BIG was going down with the Clinton admin; and suddenly -- Chandra Levy. I admit, I've had the little thought in the corner of my mind all these years; wondering if the DNC made these women disappear JUST to distract attention. IT's awful; but the evidence surrounding the DNC gives rise to this type of speculation. They are dishonorable. They've gotten away with "legislative, National Security" murder too many times.
I don't think the Berger story is dead; I think it is only gathering momentum.
The Clinton Admin tore open our national security. So many holes. This was an admin that was not only hopelessly inept; they were criminal in their treatment of the "invisible security" which has protected the US for many years. I think the Republicans have been working big time behind the scenes patching those holes. And the best way to do this in NOT in public.
BUMP
Worse...in who's mind? Yours? Mine? Congress? DOJ? Or the general population?
IMO, seeing how we live in the age of "Perception is Everything"....it all ( unfortunately..) depends on how the Sandy Berglar case is "presented" to the public. Which of course...won't see much light.
I've long ago come to the conclusion...based on all that I've read/seen/heard...that many perps ( Mostly.. D's )in the Feral Gob'ment could & will get away with..whatever they want, whenever they want.
That won't happen....I won't say never....but I'd bet you icebergs show up in hell first.
FRegards,
And spot on.
FRegards,
"John D. Podesta, who served as Clinton's chief of staff during part of Berger's White House tenure, predicted Berger will have more resilience than some Washington figures who run afoul of controversy. "The strength of Sandy's career has not been connections and influence-peddling, it's been intellect and ability to have a penetrating analysis about foreign policy," he said."
I doubt he would have had a political career BUT for his connections and influence peddling ... Gawd .. what the press will put in print.
Sinking ships, apple pie, that kind of stuff.
LOL! I guess time will tell whose crystal ball is the best!
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.