Posted on 10/08/2007 5:12:57 AM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
Sandy Berger, who stole highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, destroyed them and lied to investigators, is now an adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Berger, who was fired from John Kerry´s presidential campaign when the scandal broke in 2004, has assumed a similar role in Clinton´s campaign, even though his security clearance has been suspended until September 2008. This is raising eyebrows even among Clinton´s admirers.
“It shows poor judgment and a lack of regard for Berger´s serious misdeeds,” said law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University, who nonetheless called Clinton “by far the most impressive candidate in the Democratic field.”
Adler told The Examiner that it is “simply incomprehensible to me that a serious contender for the presidency would rely upon him as a key foreign policy advisor.”
He added: “If Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, at some point she will begin to receive national security briefings that will include sensitive information. At such a point, continuing to keep Berger on board as a key advisor, where he might have access to sensitive material, would be beyond incomprehensible.”
The Clinton campaign declined to comment.
Berger has admitted stealing documents from the National Archives in advance of the 9/11 Commission hearings in 2003. The documents, written by White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, were a “tough review” of the Clinton administration´s shortcomings in dealing with terrorism, Clarke´s lawyer told the Washington Post.
On several occasions, Berger stuffed highly classified documents into his pants and socks before spiriting them out of the Archives building in Washington, according to investigators. On one occasion, upon reaching the street, he hid documents under a construction trailer after checking the windows of the Archives and Justice Department buildings to make sure he was not being watched.
Berger came back later and retrieved the documents, taking them home and cutting them up with scissors. Two days later, he was informed by Archive employees that his removal of documents had been detected.
“Berger panicked because he realized he was caught,” said a report by the National Archives inspector general, which also recounted his initial reaction. “Berger lied.”
Berger also lied to the public, telling reporters he made an “honest mistake” by “inadvertently” taking the documents, which he blamed on his own “sloppiness.” Bill Clinton vouched for the explanation for Berger, who served as his national security adviser.
Berger later conceded: “I was giving a benign explanation for what was not benign.”
The Justice Department initially said Berger stole only copies of classified documents and not originals. But the House Government Reform Committee later revealed that an unsupervised Berger had been given access to classified files of original, uncopied, uninventoried documents on terrorism. Several Archives officials acknowledged that Berger could have stolen any number of items and they “would never know what, if any, original documents were missing.”
At his sentencing in September 2005, Berger was fined $50,000, placed on probation for two years and stripped of his security clearance for three years.
Bush
Clinton
Bush
Clinton...............Oh man, this is almost like a nightmare.
Your absolutely correct....and it’s ruining our country.
How bout we try something a bit different.
IF WE KEEP FISHIN FROM THE SAME OL POND, WERE GONNA KEEP CATCHIN THE SAME OL BIG MOUTH BASS.
Vote Conservative....not the lesser of two evils.
Maybe he has the goods on BillJeffs role in the classified document debacle, and is using it to take them for a free ride.
It just seems that Hillary calculates too well to have made this decision entirely of her own free will. She is the consummate politician.
Berger's Firm to Aid Oil Interests in Iraq
By Judy Sarasohn Washington Post
Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A29
Stonebridge International, the "global strategy firm" founded by Clinton administration national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, has taken on an interesting client, Gulfsands Petroleum Ltd., a private Houston-based oil and gas company. Gulfsands, along with its larger partner Devon Energy Corp. of Oklahoma City, has oil and gas exploration and development interests in Syria. And now Gulfsands is looking to Iraq.
"Stonebridge is assisting Gulfsands in organizing meetings in Washington with administration officials to discuss the company's business interests in Iraq and U.S. policy toward Syria," Stonebridge Vice Chairman H.P. Goldfield said in an e-mail response to written questions. The lobby registration was filed with Congress by Goldfield and colleague Joy Drucker.
Goldfield, who served in senior jobs in the Reagan administration, said Gulfsands "is conducting business development activities in Iraq" but "is not pursuing any U.S. funded contracts in Iraq." Its discussions with the government of Iraq are confidential for now, Goldfield said. "Our proposed energy project will be privately funded and will have significant economic and environmental benefits to the people of Iraq.
The project would create thousands of jobs for Iraqi citizens and would introduce more environmentally beneficial technologies into Iraq's development of its oil and gas sector," Goldfield said. Berger is not involved with the work for Gulfsands, Goldfield said.
Sandy Berger, who stole highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, destroyed them and lied to investigators, is now an adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton... This is raising eyebrows even among Clinton´s admirers... Berger has admitted stealing documents from the National Archives in advance of the 9/11 Commission hearings in 2003... On several occasions, Berger stuffed highly classified documents into his pants and socks before spiriting them out of the Archives building in Washington, according to investigators. On one occasion, upon reaching the street, he hid documents under a construction trailer after checking the windows of the Archives and Justice Department buildings to make sure he was not being watched. Berger came back later and retrieved the documents, taking them home and cutting them up with scissors. Two days later, he was informed by Archive employees that his removal of documents had been detected. "Berger panicked because he realized he was caught," said a report by the National Archives inspector general, which also recounted his initial reaction. "Berger lied." Berger also lied to the public, telling reporters he made an "honest mistake" by "'inadvertently"' taking the documents, which he blamed on his own "'sloppiness." ...Berger later conceded: "'I was giving a benign explanation for what was not benign."' The Justice Department initially said Berger stole only copies of classified documents and not originals. But the House Government Reform Committee later revealed that an unsupervised Berger had been given access to classified files of original, uncopied, uninventoried documents on terrorism. Several Archives officials acknowledged that Berger could have stolen any number of items and they "'would never know what, if any, original documents were missing."' At his sentencing in September 2005, Berger was fined $50,000, placed on probation for two years and stripped of his security clearance for three years.Execution by hanging would have been more appropriate, but then we wouldn't see Hillary screw up like this. Thanks SeadogB.
The only thing that adds up is that Berger has them over a barrel. Perhaps he did not destroy the documents he said he destroyed. If you knew the Clintons' heart like Berger must know, he would have had to go to the national archieves with the thought he would never get caught, however should he get caught, it seems reasonable, given the foreknowlege tha Hillary was going to run for president, that he might need a get out of jail free card. He knows very well that the Clintons play hardball. Perhaps it is not archives document which Mr.Clinton sent Berger to get and erase. I would think it would be a physical item which would threaten the Clintons because if it was only head knowledge...will the vince scenario would erase the threat. But if he told them to make it right by Berger and give him a job and give him a position in the upcoming administration, or he would show the world their depravity. In other words the only thing that makes sense is that Berger is blackmailing Hillary. She is not that politically sophomoric to insult millions and millions of voters and put her supporters in the untenable position of trying to defend the politically stupid maneuver of hiring Mr.Berger. Clinton loyalty, historically, runs one way. Their supporters are loyal to the clintons. The Clintons have never demonstrated this type of loyalty to their supporters.
The other thing that makes me conclude this is that, even if the Clintons were inclined to 'help' Mr.Berger, their friend, NOW is exactly the wrong time politically to do so. Nothing is yet set in stone regarding her candidacy. She just gave Obama and Edwards raw meat to flail away at her corruption. She dissed Pelosi and her mantra of 'politics of corruption'. This resurrection of Berger makes null and void the Scooter Libby issue.
Why would people like the Clintons do this? That is the question. Not that they did it, buy why did they do this, at this time, and for what purpose?
The only thing that adds up is that Berger has them over a barrel. Perhaps he did not destroy the documents he said he destroyed. If you knew the Clintons' heart like Berger must know, he would have had to go to the national archieves with the thought he would never get caught, however should he get caught, it seems reasonable, given the foreknowlege tha Hillary was going to run for president, that he might need a get out of jail free card. He knows very well that the Clintons play hardball. Perhaps it is not archives document which Mr.Clinton sent Berger to get and erase. I would think it would be a physical item which would threaten the Clintons because if it was only head knowledge...will the vince scenario would erase the threat. But if he told them to make it right by Berger and give him a job and give him a position in the upcoming administration, or he would show the world their depravity. In other words the only thing that makes sense is that Berger is blackmailing Hillary. She is not that politically sophomoric to insult millions and millions of voters and put her supporters in the untenable position of trying to defend the politically stupid maneuver of hiring Mr.Berger. Clinton loyalty, historically, runs one way. Their supporters are loyal to the clintons. The Clintons have never demonstrated this type of loyalty to their supporters.
The other thing that makes me conclude this is that, even if the Clintons were inclined to 'help' Mr.Berger, their friend, NOW is exactly the wrong time politically to do so. Nothing is yet set in stone regarding her candidacy. She just gave Obama and Edwards raw meat to flail away at her corruption. She dissed Pelosi and her mantra of 'politics of corruption'. This resurrection of Berger makes null and void the Scooter Libby issue.
Why would people like the Clintons do this? That is the question. Not that they did it, buy why did they do this, at this time, and for what purpose?
Heheh——good one.
As Alice in Wonderland said: “Curiouser and curiouser”. This move will give ammo to Edwards and Obama, as well as all of the Pub candidates.
I don't think he will. He is obviously getting what he wants from the Clintons. Their willingness to take him on, make it public (get it all out there early to defang the issue at a later date when someone brings it up). If we start at the assumption that the Clintons are purely self-serving, and most certainly they are, the only thing left is they are willing to take some heat,....but for a reason....not for friendship.....not for principle.....they are doing what they always do.....it is in their best interest. Now, with that given, apply logic and one can only assume that Berger has leveredge over them. It would not be a "he said, she said". That would never stampede the Clintons since they have the MSM to cover for them. There is proof somewhere which frightens the Clintons, and something which they fear Berger could make good on.
Now if this were Bush you would be more likely to bet on Bushs' loyalty to his people on a principled discipline. But that is not a tool the Clintons have ever used.
No, Hillary is not good and will not do any good thing for friends or foe. Hillary will do what is in her best interest and that is taking on Berger. That is the line of least resistance for Hillary, though it may require her to endure a nonfatal injury by this being reported. It has been determined by Hillary that downside is less intolerable than hiring Berger.
What compells the Clintons is self interest, in all that they do. If one looses site of this immutable characteristic of the Clintons, that evaluator will surely go down the wrong trail to a dead end.
There is so much to ask. Why did Berger jeopardize his good name, his law degree, his future and that of his family to go into the National Archives to steal material which made Clinton look bad. He took all of the risk. Clinton took none. Clinton has always excused his actions by blaming others. That is what both Clintons do. So what compunction would Berger have to put at risk his lifes work, his name, his character being exposed as a thief, a liar, a person who puts at risk his nation by destroying sensitive documents. That is not a logical thing for Berger to do. It is unreasonable for Clinton to ask him to do it. IT was unreasonable for Berger to do what Clinton asked of him,.....but he did.....WHY???? The risk/reward analysis must have proven to be great.
Hillarys' downfall may well be found in the answer to these questions, if they can be devined, or if Berger can be flipped. I don't suggest that will happen. But it is intriguing to consider the actions of self-serving sociopaths as their decisions relate to Samuel Berger.
These lefties have NO SHAME and NO HONOR.....much like the bulk of the ME generation.
I don’t think Berger would stand a chance in the public without hard fast, evidence. He did not destroy those documents. He holds those documents over them like a sword of Damocles. They must know he can make good on his threat or they would not have put themselves in any questionable light.
Right, and how long are they going to let him call the shots?
They will comply with his demands as long as it serves their personal purposes. At such a time that the threat cannot be tolerated, I suspect that “Official torture policy” that Hillary keeps talking about, will be set aside for this one special case. I don’t know if this is true, but it seems to be the only thing that is logical regarding this cadre of people. Hillary did not do this becasue Sandy is an old friend. She does not take the slings and arrows for others.
A really angry BUMP! Unbelievable. While “every other Independent Council Report has been publicly printed” for all the world to see, I still can’t read the Barrett report because of 2 Dumb-_ss elected officials. Aughh!
Again, WHY was this allowed to happen???
Berger’s position on the Hillary Khomeini campaign is not news.
See my post #63 (dated 9/16/07) on the following link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1897367/posts?page=53
That post also puts Berger’s postion with Hillary in perspective with respect to what other clintonites are doing, and makes BOTH Hillary and Obama look bad!!!!
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.