Skip to comments.
'SOCKS DOCS' JURY GRILLS CLINTON CRONY
New York Post ^
| 1/12/05
| IAN BISHOP and DEBORAH ORIN
Posted on 01/11/2005 11:41:41 PM PST by kattracks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 421-432 next last
To: cyncooper; Howlin; Liz
I've looked at scads of articles about the memo today and none state the actual date the memo was composed
I'm even looking at the emails of articles I saved and still can't find it ..
I REALLY need to get more organized with my book marks though .. *L*
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
All the President's Memos
Let's all see what Sandy Berger was trying to hide.
Tuesday, July 27, 2004 12:01 a.m.
We've all had experience with the office Oscar Madison. Yet notwithstanding Bill Clinton's transparently insincere effort last week to laugh off the docs-in-socks scandal as a testament to Sandy Berger's sloppy ways--that Sandy!--the precision with which the former National Security Adviser zeroed in on one specific document in the National Archives suggests focus, not absentmindedness.
Which raises the obvious question: What was in that document that Mr. Berger so badly wanted to keep under his hat, er, trousers? The only way to answer that question is for the Justice Department to release it.
The 9/11 Commission report offers a tease. It records Mr. Berger's objections to at least four proposed attacks on al Qaeda between 1998 and 2000. A footnote on page 500 puts it this way: "In the margin next to Clarke's suggestion to attack al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote 'no.' "
The Clarke in that footnote, of course, is Richard Clarke. He is the author of the document Mr. Berger pinched from the archives, an after-action review of the Clinton Administration's response to al Qaeda's 1999 threats against the U.S. In his own testimony to the Commission, Attorney General John Ashcroft--who has the advantage of having read the document--says that in it Mr. Clarke attributes such success as the Clinton Administration had against al Qaeda to luck rather than skill.
That belies the public line taken by both Mr. Berger and Mr. Clarke, which is no small matter given how critical both have been about the Bush Administration these past few months. Certainly their own credibility is an issue, as is that of Mr. Clinton, who has also claimed that he told Mr. Bush how consumed he was with al Qaeda.
Still, the main public interest here has nothing to do with fixing blame on either Mr. Berger, Mr. Clarke or the Clinton Administration for what they did or did not do pre-9/11. To the contrary, it has to do with the single largest question of this election: How America ought to respond to the terror threat.
On Sunday, Commission Chairman Tom Kean said that Mr. Berger's padded hosiery did not affect the Commission's final report. Mr. Kean says he believes Commissioners had all the documents. The problem is this: He has no way of knowing for certain what he might not have seen. Remember, it was Mr. Berger who was assigned the task of selecting which documents--and which drafts of which documents with which marginal notations--to send up on behalf of the Clinton Administration.
Experience tells us that tiny differences in drafts can be critical. After all, the Iran-Contra case exploded when then-Assistant Attorney General Brad Reynolds discovered a paragraph in one draft of an Ollie North memo on diverting funds to the Contras. This was a paragraph that did not appear in other drafts of the same memo. At the very least, given Mr. Berger's role as point man for the Clinton-era documents, Justice needs to assign someone to review his selections and ensure the integrity of a process he so grossly compromised.
While this might mean nothing to Mr. Kean, surely it has some implications for voters in this election. The Bush Administration has been taking knocks for not having made al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden the priority Mr. Berger said it was during the Clinton years. Yet neither Attorney General Ashcroft nor National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice even saw this Clarke report until after the 9/11 terrorists had struck.
Perhaps if they had, America would have been on a more aggressive footing earlier on. At the least, releasing the Clarke after-action report now would provide better context for weighing such ongoing political accusations as the charge that the Bush Administration's concern about Iraq was simply a fantasy of a "neoconservative" cabal.
Toward that end we can't help but note page 134 of the Commission report, which documents a proposal early in 1999 to send a U-2 mission over Afghanistan to gather intelligence on where bin Laden was hiding out. Mr. Clarke objected on the grounds that Pakistani intelligence would tip bin Laden off that the U.S. was planning a bombing mission. "Armed with this knowledge," the Commission quotes Mr. Clarke as saying, "old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad." Is that the same secular Baghdad that we are told would never cooperate with Islamist al Qaeda?
The entire justification for the highly contentious exercise known as the 9/11 Commission has been to provide Americans with a full accounting of that terrible day, let the chips fall where they may. Now we learn that Mr. Berger wanted to keep some of those chips hidden. Whatever Mr. Berger's legal liabilities, the largest interest here is less what he did than why a sophisticated ex-National Security Adviser would do it. And for that we need to see what he was hiding.
Copyright ) 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
241
posted on
01/12/2005 9:55:24 AM PST
by
Mo1
(Does the distinguished Sen from VT wish to act as our treaty rep. for negotiations with Al Queda?)
To: cyncooper
TInfoil hat time:
Remember all the talk about another spy about the time the Hanson case was made public....concern about a "mole" in a high place......or something like that....My memory is fuzzy today....Could Berger be the mole or have connections to....? Maybe CLinton and Kerry aren't his handler, but being "handled" by the same person.
242
posted on
01/12/2005 9:57:04 AM PST
by
hoosiermama
(prayers for all)
To: cyncooper
Just a timeline reference:
Berger first visited the National Archives on July 18, 2003 , to review secret documents involving the Clinton administrations flawed response to terror plots.
In Carlin's response (dated July 21-my note: July 21, 2004--) obtained by the history coalition, the Archivist stated: "In answer to the first question, the Administration initially approached me. On Friday, December 5, 2003 , the Counsel to the President [Alberto Gonzales] called me and told me the Administration would like to appoint a new Archivist.
On July 22, 2004 , the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee held a confirmation hearing on the pending nomination of historian Allen Weinstein to become Archivist of the United States. Weinstein is the Bush administration's choice to succeed the present archivist, John Carlin.
Anything here?
243
posted on
01/12/2005 9:57:57 AM PST
by
JesseJane
(KERRY: I have had conversations with leaders, yes, recently.That's not your business, it's mine.)
To: Quinotto
And WHY isn't the media all over this story? They are waiting for Freepers to do their research!
244
posted on
01/12/2005 9:59:33 AM PST
by
hoosiermama
(prayers for all)
To: cyncooper
Thank you!! I think we are all running at the same thing here~!!! This is amazing..
245
posted on
01/12/2005 9:59:48 AM PST
by
JesseJane
(KERRY: I have had conversations with leaders, yes, recently.That's not your business, it's mine.)
To: cyncooper
Thank you for the expanded information. That's very interesting - I think it definitely indicates that something sneaky was going on for quite some time, but it seems as if the good guys had been alerted to it (or suspected it) for some time, as well.
I wonder if the archivist was allowed to "resign" rather than being hauled off in handcuffs in return for cooperation?
246
posted on
01/12/2005 10:00:02 AM PST
by
livius
To: Liz
Perhaps I should give somebody my cell phone number.......LOL.
247
posted on
01/12/2005 10:00:19 AM PST
by
Howlin
(I need my Denny Crane!)
To: Kenny Bunk
248
posted on
01/12/2005 10:01:05 AM PST
by
Howlin
(I need my Denny Crane!)
To: Liz
LOL...thanks...I just found a copy of the text from a Talon News story about the Free Republic Network demanding an ethics investigation into the memo but luckily decided to check the thread before posting it.
249
posted on
01/12/2005 10:01:45 AM PST
by
cake_crumb
(Leftist Credo: "One Wing to Rule Them all and to the Dark Side Bind Them")
To: cyncooper
Okay, am I lost? Why would the memo have a date of 2002 on it, if it was an "after action report" from the Clinton administration?
250
posted on
01/12/2005 10:02:23 AM PST
by
Howlin
(I need my Denny Crane!)
To: JesseJane
And on May 27, 2004, John Kerry launched into an 11-day national security tour focusing on the security of Americas infrastructure, its ports and, yes, its airports, the very same issues that Bergers documents reportedly touched upon.Ding! Ding! Ding! This has something to do with it, too!
251
posted on
01/12/2005 10:03:33 AM PST
by
Howlin
(I need my Denny Crane!)
To: kcvl
Wow...sounds like they were'nt messing around and most likely have a good case (coming from a complete layman here).
Interesting!
To: Howlin
Just look out your window. When you're needed we'll hire a plane dragging a banner saying, " Howlin, get to your computer, now."
253
posted on
01/12/2005 10:04:26 AM PST
by
Liz
(Wise men are instructed by reason; lesser men, by experience; the ignorant, by necessity. Cicero)
To: JesseJane
Later that month, the FBI launched an investigation into the missing documents and eventually searched Bergers own home and the office for missing documents. The documents contained information about the security of Americas infrastructure, its ports and its airports. And on February 27, Berger, now a John Kerry adviser, briefed the media on Kerrys new plans for fighting terror. Thanks for the info ... This Thread is one of the reasons I love FR!!
Our reseach department ROCKS!
I believe I read an article that Berger was sent there at Clinton's request
254
posted on
01/12/2005 10:07:22 AM PST
by
Mo1
(Does the distinguished Sen from VT wish to act as our treaty rep. for negotiations with Al Queda?)
To: livius; cyncooper; Liz; Howlin; kcvl
What if this archivist was selling information????
From his BIO:
http://www.archives.gov/welcome/bio_carlin.html
One of the major initiatives of NARA's Strategic Plan is the Electronic Records Archives (ERA), which aims to preserve and provide access to virtually any type of electronic record created anywhere in the Federal Government. This is an unprecedented effort involving partnerships with other Federal agencies and experts in the private sector to solve the problem of preserving the ever-increasing volumes of diverse, complex digital records that are being created worldwide. The entire Federal Governmentindeed, today's "information society" at largehas a stake in ERA's success.
Why does my mind skip to the disks missing from Los Alamos, and that Chinese guy. We know Berger was involved with the Chinese Campaign Finance scandal..
255
posted on
01/12/2005 10:09:35 AM PST
by
JesseJane
(KERRY: I have had conversations with leaders, yes, recently.That's not your business, it's mine.)
To: Howlin
Okay, am I lost? Why would the memo have a date of 2002 on it, if it was an "after action report" from the Clinton administration? It's about the memo that was leaked about the Senate Intell and the dems on the committe using the info to take down Bush during the election
256
posted on
01/12/2005 10:10:07 AM PST
by
Mo1
(Does the distinguished Sen from VT wish to act as our treaty rep. for negotiations with Al Queda?)
To: Liz
The Archivists didn't call the FBI first? It makes me wonder why. Are the keepers of our highest Archives in cohoots with the x42 administration? It sounds like one whole shift was part and parcel of this theft. The second shift seems to be the ones who caught it. It this right?
To: livius; cyncooper; Liz; Howlin; kcvl
What if this archivist was selling information????
From his BIO:
http://www.archives.gov/welcome/bio_carlin.html
Mr. Carlin was appointed Archivist by President William J. Clinton in 1995. He immediately began a comprehensive strategic planning effort that resulted in a 10-year plan to refocus the agency and bring it into the 21st century.
One of the major initiatives of NARA's Strategic Plan is the Electronic Records Archives (ERA), which aims to preserve and provide access to virtually any type of electronic record created anywhere in the Federal Government. This is an unprecedented effort involving partnerships with other Federal agencies and experts in the private sector to solve the problem of preserving the ever-increasing volumes of diverse, complex digital records that are being created worldwide. The entire Federal Governmentindeed, today's "information society" at largehas a stake in ERA's success.
Why does my mind skip to the disks missing from Los Alamos, and that Chinese guy. We know Berger was involved with the Chinese Campaign Finance scandal..
258
posted on
01/12/2005 10:11:11 AM PST
by
JesseJane
(KERRY: I have had conversations with leaders, yes, recently.That's not your business, it's mine.)
To: Howlin
Yep, telling the terrorists where to hit us..
259
posted on
01/12/2005 10:11:52 AM PST
by
JesseJane
(KERRY: I have had conversations with leaders, yes, recently.That's not your business, it's mine.)
To: JesseJane
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1176630/posts
9/11 REPORT: DOCS STOLEN BY BERGER MAY REFUTE INFAMOUS "MISSED HIM BY 10 MINUTES" CLAIM
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 Ralstons 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 2030 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 Pakistans 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)
260
posted on
01/12/2005 10:12:30 AM PST
by
Howlin
(I need my Denny Crane!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 421-432 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson