Posted on 01/03/2007 11:48:07 PM PST by Jim Robinson
OK, thanks!
=====I will placemark =====
And look at his pathetic remarks about the Cole, NEVER showing one ounce of backbone, NEVER promising justice to the families of the murdered ... just blaming it on the Israel/Arab situation .. dear Lord .. what a complete a$$hat and schlub. Imagine his role in the next 2 years, and God forbid if SHE gets in.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Of course, the year 2000 had its share of tragedies and disappointments as well. Sitting at the Norfolk Naval Base with survivors of the senseless attack against the USS Cole only reinforced the reality that America is in a deadly struggle with a new breed of anti-Western terrorists. And despite all the progress we have made in the Middle East, it will be sad indeed if the promise of this unusual moment of history slips into the abyss of violence.
But I know this: sooner or later, hopefully before too much more bloodshed and tears, Israelis and Palestinians will have to return to the same questions they confront today, and, I believe, the same inescapable choices. They can postpone the moment of truth, but they cannot escape the reality that they must find a way to live side by side on the same soil, in the same land."
BOOKMARK this ... one of last official dumpings on US by Clinton .. the contingent he took to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, March 18-26, 2000. Names we'll probably be seeing again.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/031800-03.htm
Question .. any chance these original draft documents would have been scanned through microfiche??
They accepted a plea deal? Perhaps they didn't have enough evidence
OR THEY LET HIM OFF EASY BECAUSE IT LEAD TO CLINTON!
Because it is.
I just don't buy it that W would hand our nation over to that witch because it would be kinda neat to have Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton.
Well that is obviously not Bush's motivation, if he was a free actor, but clearly...he is not.
Hitlery was never forced to return her 900+ illegally-swiped raw FBI files. The conclusions to that little imbroglio are inescapable.
Sorry to burst your bubble...
I'm sure you're right, oceanview. Sandy Burger risked everything, including what should have been a serious jail sentence, to steal documents from the National Archives to protect himself and to protect Clinton.
It was a calculated risk and it paid off given Berger's unconscionably light sentence.
Oh, for Pete's sake. Re-read my earlier post. The FBI Files?
And then look how the Office has been misused and abused serially by the Xlintons. Not just before but afterwards. W's purported "respect of the office" doesn't cut it as even a lame argument for his neglect of his DUTY to enforce the laws, and hold no one, repeat no one...Above the Law.
So connect the dots.
Do you really think that they (the Clintons) don't have incredible coercive power over this Administration?
Excellent work and documentation.
Well, I guess you told me.
Thank you .;) Was in a Burglar zone big time.
Where are the calls for TREASON from the right? This is a treasonous act. What would the framers do to a man like this?
BTTT
I wish now that Mr. Weldon isn't a Senator anymore, he would make public all the Able Danger info....
The NSC's Millennium After Action Review declares that the United States barely missed major terrorist attacks in 1999 — with luck playing a major role. Among the many vulnerabilities in homeland defenses identified, the Justice Department's surveillance and FISA operations were specifically criticized for their glaring weaknesses. It is clear from the review that actions taken in the Millennium Period should not be the operating model for the U.S. government.
In March 2000, the review warns the prior Administration of a substantial al Qaeda network and affiliated foreign terrorist presence within the U.S., capable of supporting additional terrorist attacks here. [My note: AD info?]
Furthermore, fully seventeen months before the September 11 attacks, the review recommends disrupting the al Qaeda network and terrorist presence here using immigration violations, minor criminal infractions, and tougher visa and border controls.
It falls directly into the AD timeline. In that same post, I note that what Sandy Berger stole was the versions of the after action report:
The missing copies, according to Breuer and their author, Richard A. Clarke, the counterterrorism chief in the Clinton administration and early in President Bush's administration, were versions of after-action reports recommending changes following threats of terrorism as 1999 turned to 2000. Clarke said he prepared about two dozen ideas for countering terrorist threats. The recommendations were circulated among Cabinet agencies, and various versions of the memo contained additions and refinements, Clarke said last night.
Therefore, they were never provided to the Commission, as evidenced by the Commission Report footnotes (#769):
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 Ralston’s 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 20–30 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 Pakistan’s 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)How about that? How many times have we heard Clinton say that he missed Bin Ladin by just a few hours? Yet the after-action report is missing, so the Commission relied on Sandy Berger's testimony.
Then the Clarke/Kerrick memo peaked my interest and I found this (#784):
Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible. He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin's having met with Iraqi officials, who "may have offered him asylum." Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be "virtually impossible" to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.More on AD:
“The Sept. 11 commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohammed Atta or of his cell,” said Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. “Had we learned of it obviously it would’ve been a major focus of our investigation.”
Hamilton’s remarks Tuesday followed findings by Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, that made front-page news.
In June, Weldon displayed charts on the floor of the U.S. Senate showing that Able Danger identified the suspected terrorists in 1999. The unit repeatedly asked for the information to be forwarded to the FBI but apparently to no avail. Various news outlets picked up on the story this week.
Weldon said that in September 2000, the unit recommended on three separate occasions that its information on the hijackers be given to the FBI “so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists.” However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation, arguing that Atta and the others were in the country legally so information on them could not be shared with law enforcement.
“Lawyers within the administration — and we’re talking about the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration — said ‘you can’t do it,’” and put post-its over Atta’s face, Weldon said. “They said they were concerned about the political fallout that occurred after Waco … and the Branch Davidians.”
Let's look now to what the 9/11 report has to say about the man to whom President Clinton, under attack by an independent counsel,delegated so much in respect of national security, Samuel “Sandy” Berger. The report cites a 1998 meeting between Mr. Berger and the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, at which Mr. Tenet presented a plan to capture Osama bin Laden.
“In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted,” the report says, citing a May 1, 1998, Central Intelligence Agency memo summarizing the weekly meeting between Messrs. Berger and Tenet.
In June of 1999, another plan for action against Mr. bin Laden was on the table. The potential target was a Qaeda terrorist camp in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms. The commission report released yesterday cites Mr. Berger’s “handwritten notes on the meeting paper” referring to “the presence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60-65 casualties.”According to the Berger notes, “if he responds, we’re blamed.”
On December 4, 1999, the National Security Council’s counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, sent Mr. Berger a memo suggesting a strike in the last week of 1999 against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Reports the commission: “In the margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, ‘no.’ ”
In August of 2000, Mr. Berger was presented with another possible plan for attacking Mr. bin Laden.This time, the plan would be based on aerial surveillance from a “Predator” drone. Reports the commission: “In the memo’s margin,Berger wrote that before considering action, ‘I will want more than verified location: we will need, at least, data on pattern of movements to provide some assurance he will remain in place.’ ”
In other words, according to the commission report, Mr. Berger was presented with plans to take action against the threat of Al Qaeda four separate times — Spring 1998, June 1999, December 1999, and August 2000. Each time, Mr. Berger was an obstacle to action. Had he been a little less reluctant to act, a little more open to taking pre-emptive action, maybe the 2,973 killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks would be alive today.
Note: Couldn't get this link to come up anymore, but did find another story that cites it.
"Berger said if someone had always been with him, he would not have taken any documents"
So, basically he even knows he's untrustworthy.
Imagine that!
What disgusts me more than Sandy's burgling is how little was done about it. Why, for starters, would this guy EVER have security access again?
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.