The backdrop: A National Security Adviser, a man trusted with the national security protocols of our country, enters a secure location and steals documents. He steals them by stuffing them down his pants to conceal the crime. He’s caught. His house is searched. Some of the critical documents are “missing”. Documents that could potentially provided detailed information regarding the Clinton administration’s reactions to al-Qaida terror threats in the 1990s. Documents a normal American would consider potentially significant in light of the terrorism our nation has suffered over the last decade. A crime involving the theft of national security documents by a man who once served as NSA to the President, and thus should no better than anyone else the consequences and dangers of such action.
So how do the Democrats feel about the theft of national security documents by a former Presidential adviser? How do they feel about one of their own walking into a secure location and cramming a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration’s handling of al-Qaida terror threats down his pants and subsequently “losing” them?
“This matter is a year old,” he said on NBC’s “Today” show.
“Never once, in all my discussions with the Justice Department has there been any assertion like that,” Breuer said. “It was an advertent mistake … All I can tell you is that when this matter started a year ago, I said to the Department of Justice that we were going to deal with this in good faith, that we wouldn’t go to the press and that we wouldn’t make this political …. and then suddenly, days before the 9/11 commission report comes out, this is leaked.”
and
In an interview with The Denver Post, Clinton questioned the timing of the Berger flap
Call it a Right-Wing political attack. Question the timing of the press coverage. Do anything you can to switch the topic away from the single, most important issue - the National Security Adviser to President Bill Clinton crammed a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration’s handling of al-Qaida terror threats into his pants, walked out of the secure location and permanently disposed of the documents so nobody would ever find them.
I’d also like to question the timing of this press coverage. I want to know why in the hell the press withheld this story from Americans who have the right to know their former National Security Adviser is a criminal, willing to walk right into a secure location and steal classified documents in order to cover up potential failures of the previous administration. I want to know why there was no outrage a year ago when all this supposedly happened.
You’re damn right Berger and the Democrats didn’t want to go to the press or make it political. Why would they? How is there any gain for them in anyone knowing Clinton’s NSA stole classified documents to coverup Clinton failures with respect to al-Qaida? But it’s not a political question anyway. It’s a criminal, national security and coverup conspiracy question. Perhap Lanny Breuer will answer THOSE questions.
What does Presidential candidate John Kerry think?
Kerry said later, “Sandy Berger is my friend…”
That about sums it up. Perhaps it’s time your friend went to jail, whaddya say, Mr. Kerry? Is your country’s security worth the conviction of a friend who broke laws to steal and destroy classified document relating to terror threats from al-Qaida?
So instead of addressing the fact that Clinton’s National Security Adviser stole classified documents relating to the Clinton administration’s handling of, and response to al-Qaida, they try to make it political. They “question the timing of the press”. They support Berger’s assertion that stuffing classified documents down his pants and trashing them when he got home “an honest mistake”. They even laugh about it.
This is how security was approached with a Democrat in office, don’t think a new Democrat will change that. They laugh and mock security. They send out their own political hacks and attack dogs like Joe Wilson and Richard Clarke to blatantly lie about the current administration’s actions and coverup the failures of their own past administration. They focus on the message of these people and tell us to ignore the timing of Richard Clarke’s book coinciding with his testimony. They tell us not to pay attention to the timing of Joe Wilson’s story, or Clinton’s book and all the CBS interviews. They want us to just look at the message of these people. And when all the lies are uncovered, all the distortions are upended by facts, what do they do? They move to the next story and refuse to address “the past”, the “ancient history”. Just get the lies out there and when the facts come out, question the messenger or the timing and move on to today’s lies and distortions.
No, this story won’t die. Clinton’s National Security Adviser walked into a secure location, stuffed classified documents in his pants, took them home and trashed them. A logical conclusion to draw is that Berger was attempting to coverup lies, deceit and failures of the Clinton administration’s handling of terrorism and al-Qaida. Then they laugh about it.
Maybe we ought to turn back to another Kerry quote to understand the Democrats’ reaction to this criminal activity:
“…these guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group that I’ve ever seen…”
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
