Skip to comments.
Archives Staff Was Suspicious of Berger
Washington Post ^
| July 22, 2004
| John F. Harris and Susan Schmidt
Posted on 07/21/2004 9:25:10 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320, 321-330 next last
To: conservative in nyc
Anytime the Post can stick it to the NY Times, they work tirelessly to do so.
281
posted on
07/22/2004 4:29:12 AM PDT
by
rabidralph
(If you can read this tagline, then stop.)
To: Graymatter
He didn't have a clue nor did he have time to take a briefing on a terrorist threat because he was too "busy."
God I hope the RNC is paying attention. Good campaigning material.
To: Sir Gawain
How did we even survive the Clinton years?Only because it took OBL a little longer to get his ducks in a row.
To: Puddleglum; phxaz
He had pulled a switcheroo.Nah, he just stole all the draft copies with comments and revisions and destroyed them.
Susan Schmidt of the Wash Post has now written two stories asserting that Berger took ALL of the draft copies.
284
posted on
07/22/2004 4:53:08 AM PDT
by
angkor
To: Howlin
To: Protect the Bill of Rights
Is it the norm [for NARA] to call an attorney first when something is missing?Bubba Clinton has formal statutory authority over the papers.
Lindsey - as Clinton's designated attorney in this matter - would have been the point man in obtaining the necessary waivers for Berger to examine the docs.
There was a formal procedure undertaken to allow Berger into the Archives, and it seems likely that Lindsey was the legal interface (between the Archives and Berger) in executing the paperwork, defining the scope of the review, the dates and times of review, etc.
I don't see any issue with Archives calling Lindsey first, he would have been the legal pointman from the Archive's point-of-view.
286
posted on
07/22/2004 5:01:47 AM PDT
by
angkor
To: angkor
Thanks...that clears that issue up for me.
To: Remember_Salamis
Has Berger been arrested yet? No!
Has the DOJ issued an indictment yet? No!
How much time has elapsed since Berger is allegedly to have stolen classified materials? 9, nearly 10 months!
It is pathetic that the law has to be enforced by the media and congressional committees and not the DOJ as intended?
To: Ronin
I am thinking that someone's handwritten scrawl on one of the drafts might be very very worrisome to a certain party or parties right now... Could that "someone" be Richard Clarke?
289
posted on
07/22/2004 5:09:23 AM PDT
by
MamaLucci
(Libs, want answers on 911? Ask Clinton why he met with Monica more than with his CIA director.)
To: lunatic12
"Bigger than Watergate, imo."
I agree. It's time for the Republicans to take advantage of the "special prosecutor" law that the Democrats were good enough to establish. It'll be fun to listen to the Democrats whine like they did during the Clinton-Lewinsky sex scandal.
To: Remember_Salamis
Archives Staff Was Suspicious of Berger, and didn' say a F'ing thing.
291
posted on
07/22/2004 5:23:04 AM PDT
by
Arrowhead1952
(Flush the john/john rat ticket in 2004. #1 & #4 liberals in Congress.)
To: what's up
>"The notion of one of Washington's most respected foreign policy figures being subjected to treatment that had at least a faint odor of a sting operation is a strange one."
No, it's not a sting, you liberal reporterette twit. It's not a 'sting." It's a THIEF GETTING CAUGHT!
A sting would be where some 5' 10" tall blond female Archives employee whispered "Pssst, Sandy Baby. Slick Willie would really like to see a copy of this...."
This was an out and out theft by a man who knew better. The only real question is, and the one the pest should be asking is: Why?
What was in those papers Burger wanted to destroy or take to someone else, and who was that someone else.
Clinton, probably not. He certainly would have access to all if those records himself. Kerry, same thing. Certainly Burger didn't just need the data for himself.
Who?
Ask yourself, "Who?" "Who" had enough money to get Burger to do this? "Who" wanted to know what was in those papers very badly?
Add this into the mix. Burger's lawyers are tried twice to get DOJ to accept a quick "I did it."
Why doesn't Burger want the "Why" question asked or answered.... and of course for us old newsie types "Why" quickly leads to "Who" for....
292
posted on
07/22/2004 5:34:59 AM PDT
by
MindBender26
(Kill all Islamic terrorists now. Then they cannot kill our sons and daughters tomorrow)
To: Remember_Salamis
He has acknowledged through attorneys that he knowingly did not show these papers to Archives officials for review before leaving -- a violation of Archives rules, but not one that he perceived as a serious security lapse. If Condi had done this, Sandy would be screaming to the heavens about how it was a SERIOUS SECURITY LAPSE, and that she was well aware of the rules.
I hope he falls hard.
293
posted on
07/22/2004 5:55:58 AM PDT
by
mombonn
(¡Viva Bush/Cheney!)
To: Remember_Salamis
To: CyberAnt
Weren't some of the "handwritten" comments Berger's own handwritten notes which he removed from the documents ..??
No doubt some were, But I suspect there were handwritten notes in the margin of the drafts saying things like "delete this".
To: GOPrincess
"I didn't have a clue" not only made Kerry look dumb, but it wasn't a flat-out "No." You know, I sat there after hearing Kerry and thought long and hard about how it did not seem to be an "answer". Not a clue was his answer both times, but he never actually said "no".
To: CyberAnt
And .. it was Kerry's campaign which refused to attend intel briefings (they were too busy) .. saying they had their own intelligence. Was that intel the stuff Berger was pilfering from the Archives ..?? oooooo, that sound very interesting.
To: Howlin
It's all about the timing! It's obviously political! Oh, yeah, and the timings of Moore's movie and the 911 comission report release were entirely coincidential--shame on you for suggesting Moore or the 911 comission have any political motives in their blemishless hearts.
298
posted on
07/22/2004 7:32:12 AM PDT
by
Nataku X
(You hear all the time, "Be more like Jesus." But have you ever heard, "Be more like Muhammed"?)
To: seahawk
The thing that needs to be known is who were the five???? Well that info will come out sooner or later
299
posted on
07/22/2004 7:37:34 AM PDT
by
Mo1
(50 States .... I want all 50 States come November!)
To: GeronL
"Is this really PAGE ONE???"
Not on the on line print image.
300
posted on
07/22/2004 7:41:49 AM PDT
by
snooker
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320, 321-330 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson