PDA

View Full Version : The Gap: Sandy Berger's pilfering of papers... Why is the press AWOL? (Hewitt)


JBMoney
07-22-04, 08:58 PM
Weekly Standard, by Hugh Hewitt (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/350fkind.asp) - HERE ARE the two key sentence from yesterdays Washington Post: "[Sandy] Berger returned two of the after-action drafts within days, according to his attorneys. Other drafts of the after-action document, they said, were apparently discarded."

As any lawyer who has ever argued over the contents of a brief knows, the stuff that gets left out can be the most telling material of all--indicative of prejudices and priorities, sensitivities and credibility. Berger's sticky fingers have left a gap in the record of the Clinton administration's response to the growing threat posed by al Qaeda. Unless other files exist with all the same drafts and handwritten notes that Berger destroyed, we will never be able to conclude whether Berger's actions were simply another display of fecklessness and recklessness on an issue of national security, or an attempt to bleach the record of Clinton-era malpractice on matters of terror.

Washington has had to judge gaps in the record before. "[A] few minutes missing from a non-subpoenaed tape hardly seemed worth a second thought," Richard Nixon wrote in his memoir of his reaction on first learning that Rose Mary Woods had deleted a portion of the famous tapes. Nixon would conclude "most people think that my inability to explain the 18 and 1/2-minute gap is the most unbelievable and insulting part of the whole of Watergate." Imaginations ran wild, and Nixon's credibility never recovered. - Whole Story (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/350fkind.asp)

shotglass
04-04-05, 08:02 AM
ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=632599) - - Sandy Berger, who was President Clinton's top national security aide, has acknowledged taking classified documents from the National Archives and cutting them up with scissors, law enforcement officials said Friday.

Rather than the "honest mistake" he acknowledged last summer, Berger told Justice Department lawyers he intentionally took and deliberately destroyed three copies of the same document dealing with terror threats during the 2000 millennium celebration, said the officials. They spoke only on condition of anonymity because Berger's plea had not yet been accepted by a judge.

Continued. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=632599)

shotglass
04-04-05, 08:04 AM
World Net Daily (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43623) - I knew it. You knew it.

When Sandy Berger, the former national security adviser to the president of the United States, was caught red-handed stealing highly classified documents from the National Archives more than a year ago, he was permitted to go free. He was allowed to go out and give speeches. He was even permitted to serve as a national security adviser to a presidential candidate and was talked about as a possible secretary of state for John Kerry, should he have been elected to the White House.

Was Sandy Berger covering up for his own serious national security mistakes leading up to Sept. 11? Or was he covering up for the mistakes of his superiors?

Full Story. (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43623)

Ojive
04-04-05, 08:27 AM
World Net Daily (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43623) - I knew it. You knew it.

When Sandy Berger, the former national security adviser to the president of the United States, was caught red-handed stealing highly classified documents from the National Archives more than a year ago, he was permitted to go free. He was allowed to go out and give speeches. He was even permitted to serve as a national security adviser to a presidential candidate and was talked about as a possible secretary of state for John Kerry, should he have been elected to the White House.

Was Sandy Berger covering up for his own serious national security mistakes leading up to Sept. 11? Or was he covering up for the mistakes of his superiors?

Full Story. (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43623)
Wasn't Sandy Booger Clinton's guy? Seemed like a decent fella, but I watched those hearings and well I could see the liberal motives from his testament. The media comes around when it's a conservative issue. But this could be a ploy until the next president is elected (liberal) then the republicans can go after him and start a ruckus, my spin here. I also suspect that the 9/11 deal was a cover up from the Clinton administration.