'SOCKS DOCS' JURY GRILLS CLINTON CRONY

New York Post ^ | 1/12/05 | IAN BISHOP and DEBORAH ORIN

[kattracks]

Former Clinton White House Mr. Fix-It Bruce Lindsey emerged tight-lipped yesterday after testifying before a federal grand jury probing whether top-secret documents were illegally removed from the National Archives.

The grand jury probe, reported exclusively in The Post Tuesday, is digging into why another former Bill Clinton aide, Sandy Berger, sneaked the national security documents out of the Archives — possibly in his socks.

Lindsey denied any inside knowledge about Berger's sticky fingers.

"All I know is what he [Berger] said. He made a public statement," said Lindsey, Clinton's deputy White House counsel, after testifying under oath yesterday.

Berger admits walking off with 40 to 50 top-secret documents from the archives, but claims it was an "honest mistake" while vetting documents for the 9/11 commission.

Berger has admitted destroying some documents — he says by mistake.

Lindsey declined comment on what he told the grand jury, but denied reports that he met with Berger in New York for crisis control as the scandal erupted last summer.

[snip]

Among the documents Berger lifted were multiple drafts of a report assessing the 2000 millennium threat that is said to conclude that only luck prevented a terrorist attack then.

That conflicts with Berger's sworn testimony to the commission — he claimed "we thwarted" millennium attacks by being vigilant, not lucky.

[Mo1]

I've looked at scads of articles about the memo today and none state the actual date the memo was composed

---

I'm even looking at the emails of articles I saved and still can't find it ..

I REALLY need to get more organized with my book marks though .. *L*


REVIEW & OUTLOOK

All the President's Memos
Let's all see what Sandy Berger was trying to hide.

Tuesday, July 27, 2004 12:01 a.m.

We've all had experience with the office Oscar Madison. Yet notwithstanding Bill Clinton's transparently insincere effort last week to laugh off the docs-in-socks scandal as a testament to Sandy Berger's sloppy ways--that Sandy!--the precision with which the former National Security Adviser zeroed in on one specific document in the National Archives suggests focus, not absentmindedness.
Which raises the obvious question: What was in that document that Mr. Berger so badly wanted to keep under his hat, er, trousers? The only way to answer that question is for the Justice Department to release it.

The 9/11 Commission report offers a tease. It records Mr. Berger's objections to at least four proposed attacks on al Qaeda between 1998 and 2000. A footnote on page 500 puts it this way: "In the margin next to Clarke's suggestion to attack al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote 'no.' "

The Clarke in that footnote, of course, is Richard Clarke. He is the author of the document Mr. Berger pinched from the archives, an after-action review of the Clinton Administration's response to al Qaeda's 1999 threats against the U.S. In his own testimony to the Commission, Attorney General John Ashcroft--who has the advantage of having read the document--says that in it Mr. Clarke attributes such success as the Clinton Administration had against al Qaeda to luck rather than skill.

That belies the public line taken by both Mr. Berger and Mr. Clarke, which is no small matter given how critical both have been about the Bush Administration these past few months. Certainly their own credibility is an issue, as is that of Mr. Clinton, who has also claimed that he told Mr. Bush how consumed he was with al Qaeda.

Still, the main public interest here has nothing to do with fixing blame on either Mr. Berger, Mr. Clarke or the Clinton Administration for what they did or did not do pre-9/11. To the contrary, it has to do with the single largest question of this election: How America ought to respond to the terror threat.
On Sunday, Commission Chairman Tom Kean said that Mr. Berger's padded hosiery did not affect the Commission's final report. Mr. Kean says he believes Commissioners had all the documents. The problem is this: He has no way of knowing for certain what he might not have seen. Remember, it was Mr. Berger who was assigned the task of selecting which documents--and which drafts of which documents with which marginal notations--to send up on behalf of the Clinton Administration.

Experience tells us that tiny differences in drafts can be critical. After all, the Iran-Contra case exploded when then-Assistant Attorney General Brad Reynolds discovered a paragraph in one draft of an Ollie North memo on diverting funds to the Contras. This was a paragraph that did not appear in other drafts of the same memo. At the very least, given Mr. Berger's role as point man for the Clinton-era documents, Justice needs to assign someone to review his selections and ensure the integrity of a process he so grossly compromised.

While this might mean nothing to Mr. Kean, surely it has some implications for voters in this election. The Bush Administration has been taking knocks for not having made al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden the priority Mr. Berger said it was during the Clinton years. Yet neither Attorney General Ashcroft nor National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice even saw this Clarke report until after the 9/11 terrorists had struck.
Perhaps if they had, America would have been on a more aggressive footing earlier on. At the least, releasing the Clarke after-action report now would provide better context for weighing such ongoing political accusations as the charge that the Bush Administration's concern about Iraq was simply a fantasy of a "neoconservative" cabal.

Toward that end we can't help but note page 134 of the Commission report, which documents a proposal early in 1999 to send a U-2 mission over Afghanistan to gather intelligence on where bin Laden was hiding out. Mr. Clarke objected on the grounds that Pakistani intelligence would tip bin Laden off that the U.S. was planning a bombing mission. "Armed with this knowledge," the Commission quotes Mr. Clarke as saying, "old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad." Is that the same secular Baghdad that we are told would never cooperate with Islamist al Qaeda?

The entire justification for the highly contentious exercise known as the 9/11 Commission has been to provide Americans with a full accounting of that terrible day, let the chips fall where they may. Now we learn that Mr. Berger wanted to keep some of those chips hidden. Whatever Mr. Berger's legal liabilities, the largest interest here is less what he did than why a sophisticated ex-National Security Adviser would do it. And for that we need to see what he was hiding.


Copyright ) 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[hoosiermama]

TInfoil hat time:

Remember all the talk about another spy about the time the Hanson case was made public....concern about a "mole" in a high place......or something like that....My memory is fuzzy today....Could Berger be the mole or have connections to....? Maybe CLinton and Kerry aren't his handler, but being "handled" by the same person.

[JesseJane]

Just a timeline reference:

Berger first visited the National Archives on July 18, 2003 , to review secret documents involving the Clinton administration‘s flawed response to terror plots.

In Carlin's response (dated July 21-my note: July 21, 2004--) obtained by the history coalition, the Archivist stated: "In answer to the first question, the Administration initially approached me. On Friday, December 5, 2003 , the Counsel to the President [Alberto Gonzales] called me and told me the Administration would like to appoint a new Archivist.

On July 22, 2004 , the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee held a confirmation hearing on the pending nomination of historian Allen Weinstein to become Archivist of the United States. Weinstein is the Bush administration's choice to succeed the present archivist, John Carlin.

Anything here?

[hoosiermama]

And WHY isn't the media all over this story?

They are waiting for Freepers to do their research!

[JesseJane]

Thank you!! I think we are all running at the same thing here~!!! This is amazing..

[livius]

Thank you for the expanded information. That's very interesting - I think it definitely indicates that something sneaky was going on for quite some time, but it seems as if the good guys had been alerted to it (or suspected it) for some time, as well.

I wonder if the archivist was allowed to "resign" rather than being hauled off in handcuffs in return for cooperation?

[Howlin]

Perhaps I should give somebody my cell phone number.......LOL.

[Howlin]

Let him. It won't work.

[cake_crumb]

LOL...thanks...I just found a copy of the text from a Talon News story about the Free Republic Network demanding an ethics investigation into the memo but luckily decided to check the thread before posting it.

[Howlin]

Okay, am I lost? Why would the memo have a date of 2002 on it, if it was an "after action report" from the Clinton administration?

[Howlin]

And on May 27, 2004, John Kerry launched into an 11-day national security tour focusing on the security of America‘s infrastructure, its ports and, yes, its airports, the very same issues that Berger‘s documents reportedly touched upon.

Ding! Ding! Ding! This has something to do with it, too!

[SerpentDove]

Wow...sounds like they were'nt messing around and most likely have a good case (coming from a complete layman here).

Interesting!

[Liz]

Just look out your window. When you're needed we'll hire a plane dragging a banner saying, " Howlin, get to your computer, now."

[Mo1]

Later that month, the FBI launched an investigation into the missing documents and eventually searched Berger‘s own home and the office for missing documents. The documents contained information about the security of America‘s infrastructure, its ports and its airports. And on February 27, Berger, now a John Kerry adviser, briefed the media on Kerry‘s new plans for fighting terror.

Thanks for the info ... This Thread is one of the reasons I love FR!!

Our reseach department ROCKS!

I believe I read an article that Berger was sent there at Clinton's request

[JesseJane]

What if this archivist was selling information????

From his BIO:

http://www.archives.gov/welcome/bio_carlin.html

One of the major initiatives of NARA's Strategic Plan is the Electronic Records Archives (ERA), which aims to preserve and provide access to virtually any type of electronic record created anywhere in the Federal Government. This is an unprecedented effort involving partnerships with other Federal agencies and experts in the private sector to solve the problem of preserving the ever-increasing volumes of diverse, complex digital records that are being created worldwide. The entire Federal Government—indeed, today's "information society" at large—has a stake in ERA's success.

Why does my mind skip to the disks missing from Los Alamos, and that Chinese guy. We know Berger was involved with the Chinese Campaign Finance scandal..

[Mo1]

Okay, am I lost? Why would the memo have a date of 2002 on it, if it was an "after action report" from the Clinton administration?

It's about the memo that was leaked about the Senate Intell and the dems on the committe using the info to take down Bush during the election

[tillacum]

The Archivists didn't call the FBI first? It makes me wonder why. Are the keepers of our highest Archives in cohoots with the x42 administration? It sounds like one whole shift was part and parcel of this theft. The second shift seems to be the ones who caught it. It this right?

[JesseJane]

What if this archivist was selling information????

From his BIO:

http://www.archives.gov/welcome/bio_carlin.html

Mr. Carlin was appointed Archivist by President William J. Clinton in 1995. He immediately began a comprehensive strategic planning effort that resulted in a 10-year plan to refocus the agency and bring it into the 21st century.

One of the major initiatives of NARA's Strategic Plan is the Electronic Records Archives (ERA), which aims to preserve and provide access to virtually any type of electronic record created anywhere in the Federal Government. This is an unprecedented effort involving partnerships with other Federal agencies and experts in the private sector to solve the problem of preserving the ever-increasing volumes of diverse, complex digital records that are being created worldwide. The entire Federal Government—indeed, today's "information society" at large—has a stake in ERA's success.

Why does my mind skip to the disks missing from Los Alamos, and that Chinese guy. We know Berger was involved with the Chinese Campaign Finance scandal..

[JesseJane]

Yep, telling the terrorists where to hit us..

[Howlin]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1176630/posts

9/11 REPORT: DOCS STOLEN BY BERGER MAY REFUTE INFAMOUS "MISSED HIM BY 10 MINUTES" CLAIM

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)