Sandy Burglar's Letter

CNN ^

[npg]

PDF file, click link

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/09/07/berger.iger.pdf

[npg]

Here is the Burglar's letter to ABC.

I would never suggest that anyone call the Stonebridge number at the bottom of the page.

[samadams2000]

Why this man wasnt hung or publically ridiculed in the town square is beyond me. Washington would have frog marched him behind the barn the day after the pants stuffing felony.

[msnimje]

[Recovering_Democrat]

Proof Sandy Berger is LYING IN THIS LETTER
(Hat tip: Little Green Footballs)

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Sandy stole a copy of the script???

[npg]

thanks for posting that for me. I was having trouble.

[HardStarboard]

From Sandy's letter to ABC...:

"There is nothing in the 911 Commission Report (the purported basis of your film) to support this portrayal...."

Let me finish the sentence as it should be:.....

"because all the relevant evidence was either in my pants or my socks when I left the National Archives"

[Grampa Dave]

This video link from MSNBC shows how the Clintoons/Berger failed to stop Ben Laden and enabled him to kill 3000 Americans on 9/11.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JuH1xwLUnbg

[stockstrader]

Everyone knows that Sandy Berger is a honorable and honest man of highest integrity and unquestioned character.

His comments must be taken in that context. /s

[Grampa Dave]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1177555/posts

Berger rejected four plans to kill or capture bin Laden
THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | July 24, 2004 | James G. Lakely


Posted on 07/23/2004 11:12:30 PM PDT by neverdem


President Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger, rejected four plans to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, worrying once that if the plans failed and al Qaeda launched a counterattack, "we're blamed."

According to the September 11 commission's 567-page report, released Thursday, Mr. Berger was told in June 1999 that U.S. intelligence agents were confident about bin Laden's presence in a terrorist training camp called Tarnak Farms in Afghanistan.


Mr. Berger's "hand-written notes on the meeting paper," the report says, showed that Mr. Berger was worried about injuring or killing civilians located near the camp.

Additionally, "If [bin Laden] responds" to the attack, "we're blamed," Mr. Berger wrote.

The report also says that Richard Clarke, Mr. Berger's expert on counterterrorism, presented that plan to get bin Laden because he was worried about the al Qaeda leader's "ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction."

These revelations come as Mr. Berger is under investigation by the Justice Department for smuggling several copies of classified documents that dealt with the Clinton administration's anti-terror policies out of the National Archives.

Commission Co-chairman Lee Hamilton said Thursday, however, that the missing documents Mr. Berger has acknowledged taking doesn't affect "the integrity" of the final report.

According to the report, the first plan of action against bin Laden presented to Mr. Berger was a briefing by CIA Director George J. Tenet on May 1, 1998. Mr. Berger took no action, the report says, because he was "focused most" on legal questions.

[mass55th]

Why do people insist on using their business letterhead to write letters like this? To me that is the most unprofessional thing a person can do. You don't use your employer/business address to write personal letters on. I worked for the State of New York. If I'd used letterhead to write personal letters on, I'd have been brought up on charges. Why would you use a business letterhead if what you are writing about doesn't even pertain to the company's business? If Burglar wanted to write a letter to Disney, he should have used his own personal letterhead, or he could have at least use the back of the papers he pilfered from the Archives. What a pathetic loser.

[npg]

probably because it says he's Chairman.

[mass55th]

"probably because it says he's Chairman. "

He may be a Chairman, but he's still wrong in using his business letterhead to write a letter pertaining to a personal issue. It's a gross misuse of that organization's name. It's as if he's speaking for the whole Stonebridge group...not just himself.

[weegee]

"I didn't do it!!!"

[BigBobber]

Of course you are right, but the clowns at the Stoneridge Group hired this felon to run their company. I assume they expect unprofessional behavior to be part of the "package".

[TimesDomain]

You have to "parse" his response ....

"There is nothing in the 9/11 Commission Report .....

(IF THEY DIDN'T PRINT IT IN THE REPORT, YOU CAN'T PROVE IT!)

..... (the purported basis of your film) to support this portrayal and the fabrication of this scene (of such apparent magnitude) cannot be justified under any reasonable definition of dramatic license. In no instance did President Clinton or I ever fail to support a request from the CIA or US military .....

(WE ALWAYS SUPPORTED THEM - EVENTUALLY - SOME TIME OR ANOTHER - A WEEK OR SO LATER)

..... to authorize an operation against bin Laden or al Qaeda."



See he didn't lie - you have took closely at what these POS lawyers say. They are experts in subterfuge and deceipt!

[subterfuge]

The guy is the laughingstock of the decade.

[grapeape]

Notice how they somehow put patial blame on the military. The target is in sight, they request to fire. Get no response and somehow have to take the blame for not "requesting to fire" What? more loudly? What the hell is the military supposed to do?