Posted on 10/19/2005 10:17:11 PM PDT by Yosemitest
Freeh Sounds Like He's Got the Goods
October 19, 2005
Listen To Rush Conduct Broadcast Excellence (Highly recommended by poster)
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Okay, now on to Louie Freeh, fulfilling a commitment made to you on Monday. There's a review of his book, "(My FBI: Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton, and Fighting the War on Terror)," in the Washington Times today by Joseph C. Goulden, and the interesting passage from this review... Let me give you the first paragraph then go to the interesting passage.
"Worse was to come. In November 1997, Mr. Freeh sent Attorney General Janet Reno a 27-page memo about allegations of illicit fund-raising during the 1996 campaign. Much 'soft money' came into the Clinton-Gore camp 'from alarming sources, including the People's Republic of China.' Miss Reno refused Mr. Freeh's recommendation that an independent counsel run the case. Then the president made a mistake. In an offhand remark to the press, he claimed that had the FBI briefed the White House, he would have ensured that there was no 'undue influence' involved. But as Mr. Freeh writes, two FBI agents had briefed Rand Beers, a senior National Security Council staff member. To Mr. Freeh, it was 'inconceivable' that such explosive material would not have reached the president. He writes, 'It's not in my character to lose my temper.' So he vented his anger by helping to 'draft a press statement that said, in effect, the White House was lying.'"
I still maintain that we get way into the out years and this current generation of media sycophants who love Bill Clinton have retired or passed from the scene, we're going to learn shocking details about what went on in the eight years of this administration, and this Freeh book, book by Louie Freeh, it's just opening the book and starting on the first few pages. We've got lots of pages and chapters I am sure yet to be written. Let's go to Meet the Press sound. Tim Russert talking to Louis Freeh, the question:
FREEH:
FREEH:
RUSSERT:
FREEH:
RUSSERT:
FREEH:
RUSH: Well, I would love to hear that. But let's go back to this letter for a second. Okay, so we know that the Iranians blew up our guys at the Khobar Towers, right? So we send this letter. Here's the tough-on-terrorism Bill Clinton:
Read the Articles...
Buy the Book...
Thank God for giving us Rush, and thank you Rush for all the hard work.
ping
Now..if we can just get him talking about ABLE DANGER and the OU SUICIDE BOMBING!
Do you blame alien life forms for avoiding us? We put shite like Klinton in office for 8 years and just may put his 900+ FBI files wife in for 8 years. This pure wishing treason on ourselves in spades.
Don't hold your breath.
God Bless Louis Freeh - he made a very impressive showing on MTP. I was slack-jawed.
I sure hope it flies, would like nothing better than a transparent government. But I've learned to temper high hopes.
This posted (accidentally) before I was finished dressing it up with pictures. I was looking for the photo of Sandy Berger sitting on a stool with the documents sticking out of his socks and the top of his pants that someone had posted earlier. But I couldn't find it.
Please forgive the rough format of the post.
Good stuff and I saw much of the Freeh interview on MTP.
Excellent post,BTW!
I hope he does something. The incident at Waco and the promotions of the people involved ......well....hmmmmm
He sort of still stinks a bit in my book, but smelling a LOT better lately.
BTTT
bttt
Berger’s Bonfire
WebCommentary.com ^ | 21 July 2004 | Scott Jordan
Posted on 07/21/2004 3:01:29 PM EDT by RightOnTheLeftCoast
Berger’s Bonfire
Berger’s record of inattention and malfeasance--and, yes, "sloppiness"--is unshreddable.
"[Lindsey's] nicknames have run the gamut from "the Enforcer"
to "the Consigliere," the Sicilian word for
a trusted counsel to a Mafia chieftain."
--Time Magazine, March 23 1998 [1]
The astonishing admission of Samuel “Sandy” Berger, Bill Clinton’s longtime National Security Advisor, that he stuffed “code-word”-class secret documents into his pants, sneaked them out of a secure review room at the National Archives and “inadvertently” destroyed them is highly disquieting to those familiar with Berger’s background and activities in the Clinton Administration.
In particular, the Washington Post reports [2] that Berger purloined all draft revisions of a key critique of the government's response to the millennium terrorism threat, a document that detailed Administration knowledge – and inaction – regarding al Qaeda presence in the U.S. in 1999 and 2000. Stolen were crucial notes in the margins of these drafts which reveal the thinking and agendas of the Clinton Administration relating to the mounting terrorist threat.
Cui bono? And when the losses were discovered, why did the Archives staff notify Bruce Lindsey? Lindsey, whom Time Magazine called Clinton’s consigliere, is the brilliant legal tactician both Clintons can thank for their continued freedom.
Berger has an impressive resume, but not one that obviously qualified him as NSA. He entered White House service a millionaire lawyer and lobbyist with a career centered on expanding trade with China [3]. Former FBI Director Louis Freeh opined that “he was a public-relations hack, interested in how something would play in the press” [4]. Indeed, Clinton’s brilliant poll-meister, Dick Morris, noted Berger “seemed to work overtime at opposing tough measures against terror” [5], advising vetoes of legislation aimed at crippling Iranian terror funding and working to block antiterror sanctions. It was Berger who repeatedly rebuffed Sudanese offers to hand Osama bin Laden to the United States in a deal brokered by a $900,000 contributor to Democrat campaigns [6,7]. It was Berger who allowed bin Laden and his top lieutenants to escape to Afghanistan [8]. It was Berger whose calls Bill Clinton ducked in 1998 when bin Laden was briefly vulnerable to missile attack [9]. It was Berger who was singled-out by former UN Inspector Scott Ritter for the collapse of UN inspections efforts in Iraq [10]. It was Berger who helped broker the farcical antinuclear treaty with North Korea. It was Berger who ultimately admitted that the Clinton Administration had failed to develop a war plan to fight al Qaeda [11].
At the same time, it was Berger who was the go-to man in the Administration on matters regarding China policy in the years when Communist Chinese money was being funneled into Democrat Party coffers in exchange for policy concessions and strategic nuclear technology. It was Berger whom DNC Chairman Don Fowler approached for favors for George Chao-chi Chu, a Chinagate-linked John Huang crony described as having "unusual access to high-ranking Communist officials in China" who, like the just-exited chief-foreign-policy-advisor Berger, has current ties to John Kerry [12]. And it was Berger who the Energy Department approached with warnings of Chinese spying in Los Alamos, and who stonewalled the matter for three years [13].
The list goes on and on [14]: Berger was not just the malfeasant, poll-driven, cowardly hack at the helm of our national security apparatus who enabled the global metastasis of bloodthirsty jihad; he was not just one of the key people who roadblocked cooperation between law enforcement and foreign intelligence, stacking “Gorelick’s Wall” ever higher. In fact, as bagman for the Communist Chinese, Sandy Berger was himself likely one of the key beneficiaries of Gorelick’s Wall.
Viewed against his record, Berger’s theft and destruction of “code-word”-level secret documents – and “The Consigliere’s” stealthy involvement – is all too readily understood.
Notes:
[1] TIME, "The Ubiquitous Mr. Fix-It", Adam Cohen, http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/16/time/bruce.lindsey.html
[2] Washington Post, "Berger Quits as Advisor to Kerry", Susan Schmidt, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64379-2004Jul20.html
[3] Tom Laughlin, http://www.billyjack.com/jung/08_politics/articles/990515_spy.html
[4] Freeh quoted in The New Yorker, per http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200311030753.asp
[5] Wall Street Journal, "While Clinton Fiddled", Dick Morris, http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=95001824
[6] National Review, "Clinton & Khobar", Rich Lowry, http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200311030753.asp
[7] Washington Times, "Miniter Responds", Richard Miniter, http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030922-090028-4916r.htm
[8] NewsMax, "Aide: Clinton Unleashed bin Laden", Chuck Noe, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml
[9] US News & World Report, Paul Bedard, 15 Mar 2003
[10] "Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem - Once and for All" by Scott Ritter, reviewed by Daniel Pipes, http://www.danielpipes.org/article/896
[11] National Review, "Warning B.S.", Rich Lowry, http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200310290829.asp
[12] The Hill, "Fundraiser resurfaces from 1996", Sam Dealey, http://www.hillnews.com/news/073003/fundraiser.aspx
[13] Sen. James Inhofe, http://www.matthewgoss.org/chinagate.html
[14] National Review, "The Clinton Intel Record", Mansoor Ijaz, http://nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment042903.asp
WORLD magazine exclusive: Berger and classified documents -- second time around
WORLD Magazine ^ | Posted on 07/25/2004 2:53:55 PM EDT by rwfromkansas
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1178244/posts
Turns out the surprise revelations that ex-Kerry foreign-policy adviser Sandy Berger mishandled classified documents should come as no surprise: He's done it before, according to a lawmaker who shared classified information with then-National Security Adviser Berger.
In this WORLD exclusive, Congressman Curt Weldon http://www.house.gov/curtweldon/ says, "This is the second time now that we have a documented case of Berger mishandling classified information"
At 500-plus pages, a reasonable assumption might be that the final report of the 9/11 commission would include plenty of information for even the most voracious reader. But on July 22, as official Washington began poring over the long-anticipated report, the most pressing questions centered on the few pages that might have been left out-after disappearing down the pants of a top Clinton aide.
The furor began on July 20, when former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger acknowledged he was the subject of a criminal investigation involving highly classified terrorism documents he had spirited out of the National Archives. His acknowledgment came after someone with knowledge of the probe leaked the news to the Associated Press.
Asked by Mr. Clinton in late 2003 to review the documents for possible release to the 9/11 commission, Mr. Berger admitted he smuggled some papers out of the Archives building while "inadvertently" removing others.
He claims he returned most of the materials when questioned by investigators last year, but several documents have disappeared entirely, leading House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) to term the situation a "national-security crisis."
The more immediate crisis may be political, however: Mr. Berger had been serving as an unpaid adviser to John Kerry's presidential campaign, prompting top Republicans to question whether he had misused classified information in an effort to embarrass the president. After apologizing for his "honest mistake," Mr. Berger resigned his role with the Kerry campaign on July 21.
The Berger controversy threatened to eclipse the findings of the 9/11 commission, which labored for 20 months in putting together its report. In its quest for unanimity, the carefully balanced, bipartisan panel stopped short of saying the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington might have been prevented. But that still left plenty of room for criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the terrorist threat; some questioned whether the whole Berger scandal was a GOP effort to shift the attention of voters.
At a book signing in Denver, Mr. Clinton noted the "interesting timing" of the Berger revelations, while Kerry spokesman Phil Singer went much further. "This appears to be a partisan attempt to divert attention away from the 9/11 commission report," Mr. Singer told members of the media. "Instead of using the report's recommendations to learn how we can improve our homeland security, Republicans are playing politics with a criminal investigation. That's wrong, and in November voters will have a choice on the ballot between a candidate they can trust and a president that continues to mislead the nation."
The Kerry camp went so far as to accuse Vice President Dick Cheney of personally leaking news of the Berger investigation in a closed-door meeting with Senate Republicans who later led the attack against the former national security adviser. "If true, the fact that the White House has Cheney coordinating a political attack at a time when the 9/11 report is coming out with recommendations on how to improve the nation's security speaks volumes about the Bush approach to governing," said a letter issued by the campaign.
Republicans, meanwhile, made accusations of their own. Noting that the stolen documents dealt with terrorist threats to ships and airplanes, GOP election officials pointed out that Mr. Berger, acting on behalf of the Kerry campaign, briefed reporters on that very topic last February.
Now Republicans want to know if the Democrats used classified information in an effort to undermine the president's standing on issues of national security.
"In fairness to the president of the United States, it's important that this be followed and pursued so the American people can know that the predicate of many of the charges made against George W. Bush are based on lies and deception," said Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), noting the "curious connection" between the smuggled documents and the Kerry press conference.
"I don't know what happened to these documents after they were put in Mr. Berger's pants, but it's been reported in the press that these documents related to homeland security and our airports and seaports and it's very interesting to note that those are two areas where Sen. Kerry has been critical of the Homeland Security Department," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.). "I would hope, No. 1, that the Kerry administration would disavow any connections with Berger, that they would come forward with any documents ... and that we can bring this matter to a close very quickly."
A quick close to the matter seems highly unlikely. The investigation has been quietly proceeding for nine months already, ever since workers at the National Archives reportedly saw Mr. Berger stuffing documents into his pants, shirts, and socks. The Archives' inspector general notified Mr. Berger he was being investigated in October 2003.
Four months later, the FBI broadened the inquiry into a criminal investigation.
Mr. Berger insists that the only papers he intentionally smuggled from the Archives were his own handwritten notes about the documents he was reviewing on behalf of Mr. Clinton.
His lawyers initially said Mr. Berger knew he was violating Archives regulations by removing his notes, though he didn't think he was breaking any laws.
They later backed off that claim, acknowledging Mr. Berger was cognizant of the law, which requires Archives staffers to review all papers that leave the reading rooms where classified documents are stored.
Besides his own notes, Mr. Berger admits to removing several highly classified documents by "inadvertently" slipping them into a leather portfolio he was carrying.
In addition to numerous memos, those documents reportedly included several draft versions of a report critical of the Clinton administration's counterterrorism efforts surrounding the millennium celebrations of Jan. 1, 2000.
When confronted by investigators, Mr. Berger says he promptly returned all the documents he could find, though some apparently were discarded-again, inadvertently.
"I made an honest mistake which I deeply regret," Mr. Berger told reporters the day the scandal became public.
"I dealt with this issue in October 2003 fully and completely. Everything that I have done all along in this process has been for the purpose of aiding and supporting the work of the 9/11 commission, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply absolutely wrong."
But his explanations-and his track record-have left many in Washington with lingering questions.
Why, for instance, would Mr. Berger go to such lengths merely to sneak his own notes from the reading room?
Archives workers who bent the rules by letting him bring his leather portfolio to the table-something that's normally forbidden with presidential papers-would surely have been lenient when reviewing the notes he was making.
And what of the classified documents he accidentally removed and subsequently lost?
While some might be willing to believe he let one copy of the millennium terror report fall unnoticed into his portfolio, how could he mistakenly remove multiple draft copies of the same report over a one-month period?
Mr. Berger's defenders note that he is known for his sloppiness, and that it took multiple assistants to keep him organized during his tenure as national security adviser. But his detractors remember something more sinister about his years in the Clinton White House:
Even then he was manipulating classified information to achieve political goals.
"This is the second time now that we have a documented case of Berger mishandling classified information," said Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), recalling a 1999 incident that led him to take to the floor of the House to criticize "the outrageous and curious behavior of our so-called national security adviser."
As a member of the Cox Committee charged with investigating the transfer of high-tech secrets to China during the Clinton administration, in January 1999 Rep. Weldon sent an advance copy of the committee's report to Mr. Berger for his review.
After seven months of closed-door, bipartisan hearings with no leaks to the press, the committee of five Republicans and four Democrats had unanimously recommended some three dozen steps that should be taken to protect America's national security.
Within days, however, "Sandy Berger issued a statement to selected members of the media putting the White House spin on what was still a classified document," congressman Weldon recalled.
"He did that without asking any member of the committee. Before the CIA director could even read our report, Berger was already spinning. That sets the pattern for what may have occurred" in the Archives case, Rep. Weldon believes.
Though he planned to remain silent on the current controversy until more facts came to light, a reminder of Mr. Berger's record was enough to change Rep. Weldon's mind. "I remember this vividly now," he told WORLD in his first interview on the subject. "I went through it in a detailed way on the floor of the House. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that Berger pre-released classified information to benefit the White House."
Then as now, the Pennsylvania congressman faults the Clinton spin machine for putting political calculus before the national interest. "This was an egregious violation of our country's national security," he said of the top-secret documents missing from the National Archives. "There's no way that any human being would put information in their socks unless they were trying desperately to hide something.
"The question is, for what reason? We don't know for sure what documents are missing, and we may never know. But obviously there was something there that bothered him dramatically." •
http://www.worldmag.com/newsite/content/displayArticle.cfm?id=9436
Cross-link to other articles:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1178244/posts?page=9#9
bookmark
And the TWA flight of Long Island.
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.