Replies

"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)." FROM THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT NOTES ON CHAPTER FOUR.

Yea, sounds like the burgler was after NA stuff to cover his ass. Problem is as we all had discussed some weeks back, the NA do not hand out originals to anyone, or that at least seemed to be the consensus. He only got copies, so at best he was just trying to review all the stuff that would come back and bite him. As for Clark. Over and over again we see what an ass he was and how deceitful he truly is. CYA seems to have been the only thing these jerks learned well. Guess it goes along with the territory.

"NA do not hand out originals to anyone"

Even if that's true (and it needs to be conclusively confirmed for this case), the fact that the 9/11 O-mission's footnote says they "did not find documentation on the after-action review mentioned by Berger" indicates MAJOR malfeasance by someone, either Burglar and/or 9/11 staff and O-missioners. If an original of that document does still exist in the NAs, why did Burglar not include it in the documentation provided to the commission (he was supposed to be 'selecting' the relevant documentation for the commission, which is absurd). Why did staff and O-missioners not press for that document??? Granted, they will claim they had an overwhelming amount of work to get through, but that kind of after-action report, covering the ONLY significant strike ever attempted on Bin Laden's network, would seem likely to be among the 5-10 most significant documents of the Clinton years on Al Qaeda.....