[ovrtaxt]

Oh, please. Why would the president's comments be on a draft document? Berger's probably protecting his own legacy.

"It remains unclear," asked the Post, "why [Berger] destroyed three versions of a document, but left two other versions intact."

In an earlier article on Berger, I suggested an answer to this question – the president's handwritten notes on a document make one version entirely more dangerous than an identical document without those notes. My source for this process was Col. Buzz Patterson, author of "Dereliction of Duty."

--So you think Patterson's claim is suspect? Why?

[Shermy]

"--So you think Patterson's claim is suspect? Why?"

It's a fishy story, with fish connections and assumptions.

No. 1 - why the President would be reviewing drafts of the document.

The simple answer for Berger was that he was protecting himself.

And the 9/11 commission made remarks about Berger's side notes on other documents.

[Southack]

"In an earlier article on Berger, I suggested an answer to this question – the president's handwritten notes on a document make one version entirely more dangerous than an identical document without those notes. My source for this process was Col. Buzz Patterson, author of "Dereliction of Duty."

--So you think Patterson's claim is suspect? Why?"

It would be *rare* for a President's handwritten comments on NSA docs to be stored in archives rather than destroyed after said comments were acted upon.

It would be *more* likely that each draft copy of said main report would have different comments from each agent who analyzed and marked up their unique copy, based upon their different knowledge base from their different CODE WORD level clearances.

In fact, my version easily explains why THREE DIFFERENT COPIES needed to be destroyed by Berger, whereas the WorldnutDaily author of the article for this thread doesn't explain at all why the President would have marked up 3 out of 5 copies of said main report differently.