Replies

Among the documents Berger lifted were multiple drafts of a report assessing the 2000 millennium threat that is said to conclude that only luck prevented a terrorist attack then. That conflicts with Berger's sworn testimony to the commission — he claimed "we thwarted" millennium attacks by being vigilant, not lucky.

The commission report makes clear that Berger had a habit of writing candid notes in the margin of memos, sometimes flatly rejecting plans for action. (Berger) nixed a plan to capture Osama bin Laden with one word: "No."

Now did he do that in conference with Clinton? Course, Berger was the national security advisor, so we might assume he counseled Clinton against taking out OBL.

No matter...... 911 happened thanks to these bozos.

I'm convinced that after 911, Berger was compelled to do whatever was necessary to hide, destroy, or pilfer damaging evidence of Berger's incompetence....and/or perhaps his and Clinton's complicity in corrupting US national security.

What is most interesting is WHY Bergerfelt compelled to do this. Was it on his behalf or someone else's? Was he covering up for security goofs or intentional malfeasance? And who else is involved...Clintons, DNC, or foreign governments?

(Berger) nixed a plan to capture Osama bin Laden with one word: "No."

Does the report actually say that, or are you just guessing?

The reason I ask is because I've thought all along that it isn't the reports, it's what's in the margins that they are trying to hide.

"I'm convinced that after 911, Berger was compelled to do whatever was necessary to hide, destroy, or pilfer damaging evidence of Berger's incompetence....and/or perhaps his and Clinton's complicity in corrupting US national security."

Especially since he was blaming Condi Rice for 9/11/01 at about the same time he was "accidentally" stuffing classified documents down his shorts so he could later "accidentally" destroy them a la Hillary.