OT: Clinton Advisor Takes 9/11 Papers

[Franklinnoble]

I expect the media to crucify Clinton over this. After all, if it were one of Bush's advisors, they'd be calling for his impeachment...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...be_2&printer=1

AP: Clinton Adviser Probed in Terror Memos

By JOHN SOLOMON

WASHINGTON - President Clinton (news - web sites)'s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, is the focus of a criminal investigation after admitting he removed highly classified terrorism documents from a secure reading room during preparations for the Sept. 11 commission hearings, The Associated Press has learned.



Berger's home and office were searched earlier this year by FBI (news - web sites) agents armed with warrants. Some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of al-Qaida terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing.



Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed handwritten notes he had taken from classified anti-terror documents he reviewed at the National Archives by sticking them in his jacket and pants. He also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio, they said.



"I deeply regret the sloppiness involved, but I had no intention of withholding documents from the commission, and to the contrary, to my knowledge, every document requested by the commission from the Clinton administration was produced," Berger said in a statement to the AP.



Berger served as Clinton's national security adviser for all of the president's second term and most recently has been informally advising Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites). Clinton asked Berger last year to review and select the administration documents that would be turned over to the commission.



The FBI searched Berger's home and office with warrants earlier this year after employees of the National Archives told agents they believed they witnessed Berger put documents into his clothing while reviewing sensitive Clinton administration papers, officials said.



When asked, Berger said he returned some of the classified documents, which he found in his office, and all of the handwritten notes he had taken from the secure room, but said he could not locate two or three copies of the highly classified millennium terror report.



"In the course of reviewing over several days thousands of pages of documents on behalf of the Clinton administration in connection with requests by the Sept. 11 commission, I inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives," Berger said.



"When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few document that I apparently had accidentally discarded," he said.



Lanny Breuer, one of Berger's attorneys, said his client has offered to cooperate fully with the investigation but has not been interviewed by the FBI or prosecutors. Berger has been told he is the subject of the investigation, Breuer said.



Government and congressional officials familiar with the investigation, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because the probe involves classified materials, said the investigation remains active and that no decision has been made on whether Berger should face criminal charges.



The officials said the missing documents were highly classified, and included critical assessments about the Clinton administration's handling of the millennium terror threats as well as identification of America's terror vulnerabilities at airports to sea ports.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I expect the media to crucify Clinton over this. After all, if it were one of Bush's advisors, they'd be calling for his impeachment...

Dutch,

You should talk to SkyDog. It is showing your name as Franklinnoble when you post.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I expect the media to crucify Clinton over this. After all, if it were one of Bush's advisors, they'd be calling for his impeachment...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...be_2&printer=1
[/size][/font]

Yawn. No they wouldn't. Bush has already committed impeachable offenses, and the Rethuglicans in Congress have done nothing.

[WussGawd]

dola. Not sure what this has to do with Clinton. Sandy Berger? Sure, and there *is* a criminal investigation of his actions, apparently.

Also, this is small potatoes considering that Bush has *still* not released up to 80% of the documents related to his Administration's efforts regarding terrorism.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

dola. Not sure what this has to do with Clinton. Sandy Berger? Sure, and there *is* a criminal investigation of his actions, apparently.

Also, this is small potatoes considering that Bush has *still* not released up to 80% of the documents related to his Administration's efforts regarding terrorism.

Apples and oranges.

A former advisor basically sneaks in and takes classified material from an archive? That's a whole lot different than a standing President claiming executive privilege over current documentation (something Clinton did on a regular basis).

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Apples and oranges.

A former advisor basically sneaks in and takes classified material from an archive? That's a whole lot different than a standing President claiming executive privilege over current documentation (something Clinton did on a regular basis).

Hey, he inadvertantly put those notes into his pockets, just as casually as you or I would randomly stick classified notes we weren't supposed to have in the first place in our pockets. A perfectly innocent mistake that happens to thousands of law abiding citizens every day.

[Maple Leafs]

"I deeply regret the sloppiness involved"

This is perhaps the most honest apology I've ever seen.

[NoMyths]

Awful. Berger should rightfully be made to account for his action.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

This is perhaps the most honest apology I've ever seen.

Did he bite his lower lips?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by digamma

Dutch,

You should talk to SkyDog. It is showing your name as Franklinnoble when you post.

Hey, I get bashed well enough in my own threads...

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

Yawn. No they wouldn't. Bush has already committed impeachable offenses, and the Rethuglicans in Congress have done nothing.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I expect the media to crucify Clinton over this. After all, if it were one of Bush's advisors, they'd be calling for his impeachment...

Well, it was a crappy thing to do for Berger but crucify Clinton? Why, he's not in office any more. That's the point where sane people drop their quest to crucify political opponents.

Believe me, let Bush step down tomorrow and I won't utter another bad word about him. I promise.

Now, if Clinton can be proven to have had a part in Berger's actions and suitable charges are filed, so be it. If the charges are proven then he deserves what he gets. Not a problem in the least.

To go back and crucify a guy who hasn't been in office for 4 years over something that happened in the future, well, that's just plain stupid.

I'm serious about the Bush thing; if you can get that message to him the majority of americans will be grateful.

[Swaggs]

It will be interesting to see if future presidents will be as politically polarizing as Bush and Clinton have been to the opposing parties?

If Kerry can maintain a positive campaign and win, will things change?

[nfg22]

Seriously Bush gets bashed for lying and withholding the truth...but really his stuff is classified and he doesnt have to release it because as I see it he still needs it...as where it is funny how the documents that were needed about clinton getting warned about hijackers is the classified info that was accidentally discarded.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Awful. Berger should rightfully be made to account for his action.

I hope that you post this same quote about the right as well.

[Bee]

NoMyths is part of the vast right wing conspiracy who are still trying to impeach Clinton...

[miked]

Sometimes, at work, I claim executive priviledge. But just when I'm on my coffee break or somethihng. Or when my boss asks me for that grant I was supposed write.

And I'm pretty sure there will be a 100M teaxpayer investigation to re-impeach Clinton over Berger's actions.

[QuikSand]

From the things I have heard (which admittedly seem to be thin ice - it sounds like there is some chance that the initial AP report overstated the case here), this sounds pretty bad. The "oops, my bad" defense doesn't hold a lot of water if the documents that he secreted away were in fact (1) still highly classified, and (2) specifically critical of him and that Administration.

As far as I'm concerned, this guy's a crook until I'm persuaded otherwise.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I hope that you post this same quote about the right as well.

You'll find me saying this kind of thing about any political figures who do wrong, regardless of party.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

If Kerry can maintain a positive campaign and win, will things change?

Kerry would have to start running a positive campaign in order to have one to maintain. He's attacking Bush just as often as Bush is attacking him right now.

[CamEdwards]

heh... can I be the Rethuglican that points out Berger's current occupation?

Foreign policy advisor to... Senator John Kerry (although I'm guessing not for much longer).

[WSUCougar]

Cam, you're a Republigun, not a Rethuglican. Get it straight, Charleton.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

From the things I have heard (which admittedly seem to be thin ice - it sounds like there is some chance that the initial AP report overstated the case here), this sounds pretty bad. The "oops, my bad" defense doesn't hold a lot of water if the documents that he secreted away were in fact (1) still highly classified, and (2) specifically critical of him and that Administration.

As far as I'm concerned, this guy's a crook until I'm persuaded otherwise.

this makes no sense to me...you havnt heard that much with weight, "thin ice" then go on to list some things that "might" be pretty bad, then show how it would be bad through conjecture. Then you say he's a crook unless youre convinced otherwise. HOWEVER, until Cheney releases his energy commission meetings with people, including Kenneth Lay wouldnt he be guilty of something? How about when Rumsfeld is caught lying on the air and the has no explanation? How about when Condoleeza Rice says to Congress that they had no way of knowing that Bin Laden was so bad yet the daily briefing was titled "Bin Laden and his determination to attack within the US" or something like it, is that bad? When Bush says he's concerned about outsourcing then his own dept. economic advisors say tis good for america, isnt that talking out of both sides o de mouth?

Im just syaing you need to have it be equal to both sides OR you are just a part of the poilitical repeaters who hear what they want to hear and then spread the polarization.


IMO, I think Berger should be held absolutely accountable for it, then fired from any posts in which he would have access to classified materials. And you all know that Im against the admin, but its easy to have a moral and ethical standard and then apply it equally.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

this makes no sense to me...

It's OK Flasch. QS has confused people who are far brighter than you.

[Glengoyne]

Dola,

Originally Posted by Flasch186

...HOWEVER, until Cheney releases his energy commission meetings with people, including Kenneth Lay wouldnt he be guilty of something?

Well you see NO administration is required to hand over information from meetings like this, So no. Cheney isn't guiltly of anything with that regard.

Originally Posted by Flasch186

How about when Rumsfeld is caught lying on the air and the has no explanation?

While I gather you are talking about the "imminent threat" question, I won't bother pointing out once again that you are wrong about him saying that. There is a distinct difference between saying someone is an "imminent" threat, and saying that someone (among a group of nations) poses the "most immediate" threat of attack.
Well anyway I have allowed myself to be distracted on this point. I'll give this one to you. Since when has lying to the media been a crime?

Originally Posted by Flasch186

How about when Condoleeza Rice says to Congress that they had no way of knowing that Bin Laden was so bad yet the daily briefing was titled "Bin Laden and his determination to attack within the US" or something like it, is that bad?

When did she tell congress they had no way of knowing Bin Laden was "so bad"? It may be that you just chose the wrong words here, but I certainly don't recall any part of her assessment of Al Qaida indicating that we had grossly underestimated the group to the point of not considering them "bad" or dangerous.

Originally Posted by Flasch186

When Bush says he's concerned about outsourcing then his own dept. economic advisors say tis good for america, isnt that talking out of both sides o de mouth?

Well pretty much everyone is concerned with the outsourcing of jobs. Even those who believe it is good, in fact very good, for the country in the long run, are bothered by the short term losses. This is hand in hand with NAFTA. We are agreeing to let some of our businesses take business out of the US, so our neighbors can prosper. Their prosperity will eventually reap large gains in exports from the companies that remain here in the U.S.. So no he is not talking out of both sides of his mouth. He is legitimately concerned about the losses, but hopes/believes they are short term.

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Im just syaing you need to have it be equal to both sides OR you are just a part of the poilitical repeaters who hear what they want to hear and then spread the polarization.


IMO, I think Berger should be held absolutely accountable for it, then fired from any posts in which he would have access to classified materials. And you all know that Im against the admin, but its easy to have a moral and ethical standard and then apply it equally.

I have a hard time believing you actually mean the first part of this, because I don't think you really critically think through your criticisms of Bush. You occasionally hit the nail on the head, but you are so quick to jump on "non-issues", that I simply lump you in with those who parrot the attack du jour. On the second paragraph. I do agree. I think anyone who possibly smuggled out and destroyed classified documents that portrayed them or their allies in a bad light should be investigated and dealt with appropriately. I am not yet quite willing to say that is what Berger did.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

this makes no sense to me...you havnt heard that much with weight, "thin ice" then go on to list some things that "might" be pretty bad, then show how it would be bad through conjecture. Then you say he's a crook unless youre convinced otherwise. HOWEVER,...

First of all. None of what you listed (even if true) amounts to breaking the law. Therefore, it makes little sense to lump it in with what Berger did.

Secondly, why does it matter what others have done in the past when dealing with the Berger issue. What you are doing is akin to a judge letting a murderer free because it isn't fair that he get locked up while thousands of fellow criminals not caught are running free.

Berger acknowledged that he stole the documents in a very underhanded manner. The government was unable to get the stolen information back which could have shed more light on what we knew about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in the late 90s. Seems to me like he knew there was something damning to him (and his president) in those documents, perposefully stole and destroyed them, then pulled a "me a cupla" to try and get a slap on the wrist.

I don't care if Cheney joined with Ken Lay in shredding documents, it doesn't impact the fact that what Berger did was extremely criminal, may have put a damper into our search for answers on 9/11 and may have hurt our ability to combat terror. For anyone to just brush this off or deflect just reeks of pure partisanship.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

this makes no sense to me...

[snip]

Im just syaing you need to have it be equal to both sides OR you are just a part of the poilitical repeaters who hear what they want to hear and then spread the polarization.

I'm not trying to be confusing, and I'm far from a political bandwagon-jumper.

My point, if anything, is that I'm sick and tired of people in positions of political power - no matter their partisan affiliation - constantly getting caught in unscrupulous activity, and then lying about it to cover it up. There have been enough cases of this, on both sides of the political spectrum, that it sickens me and is completely turning me off to the political process (where I currently earn my living).

As far as I'm concerned (and that's all I ever claimed to begin with) Berger is in all likelihood getting caught in the second stage of that process. If it becomes clear that this is not the case, then I'll revise my opinion. (For example, if it turns out that the missing documents really have already become de-classified and are already public, then the nefarious connections with the "sloppiness" would diminish, in my mind)

But for now, he's in the "lying scumbag" category. it's a long list. (cf. Sammy Sosa, to think of a nonpartisan example)

IMO, I think Berger should be held absolutely accountable for it, then fired from any posts in which he would have access to classified materials. And you all know that Im against the admin, but its easy to have a moral and ethical standard and then apply it equally.

Assuming he gets some sort of due process, then I certainly agree with these repercussions.

[Flasch186]

IMO these people shouldnt be doing these things to get caught at any stage of the game.

Rumsfeld said that there was no more immediate threat to america than Iraq....if that isnt the pudding, then we will NEVER agree on this. He lied PERIOD got caught on national TV and somehow the right thinks its ok.

Cheney shredding papers with Enron would be the equivalent to the underhandedness that Berger just showed, and so many more incidents. They should all be treated the same...with disdain, outrage, and un-acceptability. I hate when something is acceptd politically from one side and not the other. We should demand more from our administration....not shadiness on almost all things from testifying before the commission, lying about WMD, etc. Our leaders should be more above board...

BTW, EVEN letting out a comment that IRAN mightve had something to do with 9/11 is so pre-emptive that it reeks of the same bologna (at this point)as the WMD. Havn't we learned our lesson George. STFU and wait for some solid intel before you run your mouth, cowboy.

[JPhillips]

This whole thing is simply inexplicable to me. Apparently these were just copies of the documents and Berger knew that, so he couldn't destroy any evidence. But, Berger has lived most of his life in a high security environment, so he knows perfectly well what he can and can't do with his notes. It just makes no sense to me whatsoever.

If he did it, then he deserves whatever punishment he gets.

[SFL Cat]

Well, since one account I read said that Berger admitted removing handwritten notes he had penned from the documents he was reviewing and stuffing them in his socks, I'd say the guy was being a little more than "sloppy."

[Buccaneer]

The bigger point, I think, is what was he trying to hide in those documents?

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

The bigger point, I think, is what was he trying to hide in those documents?

Midget porn.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Kerry would have to start running a positive campaign in order to have one to maintain. He's attacking Bush just as often as Bush is attacking him right now.

Thanks for not paying attention. Bush has run virtually nothing but attack ads. He stumps not to trumpet his administration's accomplishments (mainly because there aren't any, I suppose), but to bash his opponent. His not even official yet opponent.

Most of Kerry's stump speeches ands so far have been about introducing him as a candidate and his stand on issues.

Of course, if all you are doing is watching Fox News, I can see why you would have this opinion.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

Thanks for not paying attention. Bush has run virtually nothing but attack ads. He stumps not to trumpet his administration's accomplishments (mainly because there aren't any, I suppose), but to bash his opponent. His not even official yet opponent.

Most of Kerry's stump speeches ands so far have been about introducing him as a candidate and his stand on issues.

Of course, if all you are doing is watching Fox News, I can see why you would have this opinion.

You are, of course, only hearing and seeing what you want to hear and see. All you are doing is watching something else so how the fuck (tm - QuikSand) can't you see how stupidly hypocritical you are?

[Flasch186]

I was thinking the same thing but Im biased so i didnt say anything. Every Bush ad slamsd Kerry while Kerry's seem to be introducing himself (not that I think theyre very effective) but I really felt the above was out of whack in regards to the ads that are out now.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I was thinking the same thing but Im biased so i didnt say anything. Every Bush ad slamsd Kerry while Kerry's seem to be introducing himself (not that I think theyre very effective) but I really felt the above was out of whack in regards to the ads that are out now.

Did any of you watch or listen to any of the speeches when he brought Edwards on board? All they did was talk about the horrible state the country is in, how it has to be rescued from Bush, how they need to send him back to Texas, etc. Should we go back to the whole Hitler thing?

Bush is always slamming Kerry? http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...owa/index.html. One mention that Kerry will raise taxes, whole rest of the article/speech is what he's done / what he intends to do.

From http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html:

Originally Posted by CNN

"Senator Kerry and I are going to stand with families and kids as we always have ... instead of being on the side of insurance companies and big drug companies, which is unfortunately where they (Bush and Cheney) are," he said".

There's one attack for you.

Some more good quotes from: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...eut/index.html

Originally Posted by CNN

Kerry said Bush had "pushed hard and distorted to create a framework for the intelligence they wanted and the outcome they wanted."

Originally Posted by CNN

He accused Bush of misleading America over Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction and al Qaeda connections, and said the president had broken his promises to build "a true international coalition," honor the U.N. weapons inspection process and go to war only as a last resort.

Originally Posted by CNN

Edwards, eating a lunch of salad and pasta beside Kerry at a conference table in the Boeing 757's front cabin, added: "Not only that, he abused the authority."

They're both clearly attacking the other. Don't try to play it off like Kerry and Edwards are staking out some moral high ground here.

[Flasch186]

i think we were talking about ads, not speeches and what not...on those theyre pretty much equal, but the ads have been wayyyyy lopsided.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

i think we were talking about ads, not speeches and what not...on those theyre pretty much equal, but the ads have been wayyyyy lopsided.

The original statement was talking about a campaign. Ads are only one part. And frankly, I don't watch enough network TV to see these ads, so the speeches and whatnot are most of what I see about a campaign. And knowing that 30 seconds is way too little time to convey any meaningful information, I pretty much ignore them.

[JPhillips]

Buc: But that's the point that I just don't understand. He knew what he was looking at were copies! He couldn't possibly hide or destroy any of it because he didn't have the originals. Like I said, to me this is simply inexplicable.

[SFL Cat]

If he removed notes he had "handwritten", he obviously wasn't looking at only copies of documents.