Texas Rainmaker
National Coverup Advisor
October 8th, 2007 8:04 am

It’s only fitting that a man who pled guilty to stealing and destroying classified documents is now advising the Clinton campaign.

Sandy Berger, who stole highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, destroyed them and lied to investigators, is now an adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. Berger, who was fired from John Kerry’s presidential campaign when the scandal broke in 2004, has assumed a similar role in Clinton’s campaign, even though his security clearance has been suspended until September 2008.

I have heard that criminals tend to migrate toward their own. This is obviously the Clintons’ way of paying him back for covering up evidence of Clinton’s negligence in responding to terrorists.

I’m not even shocked by their brazeness anymore.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (3) Comments
Sandy Bergler’s Dead Drop
December 21st, 2006 9:02 am

Perhaps Sandy Bergler wasn’t just trying to cover up incompetence for the Clinton administration’s handling of terrorism (or lack thereof), but maybe there’s more to this story than originally thought:

A former national security adviser to President Clinton, Samuel Berger, stashed highly classified documents under a trailer in downtown Washington in order to evade detection by National Archives personnel, a government report released yesterday said.

The report from the inspector-general for the National Archives, Paul Brachfeld, said Mr. Berger executed the cloak-and-dagger maneuver in October 2003 while taking a break from reviewing Clinton-era documents in connection with the work of the so-called September 11 commission.

“Mr. Berger exited the archive onto Pennsylvania Avenue,” the report says, recounting the story the former national security chief told investigators. “He did not want to run the risk of bringing the documents back in the building. … He headed toward a construction area on 9th Street. Mr. Berger looked up and down the street, up into the windows of the archives and the DOJ, and did not see anyone. He removed the documents from his pockets, folded the notes in a ‘V’ shape, and inserted the documents in the center. He walked inside the construction fence and slid the documents under a trailer.”

A leading authority on classification policy, Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, said Mr. Berger’s behavior was reminiscent of a “dead drop,” when spies leave records in a park or under a mailbox to be retrieved by a handler.

It’s still amazing that the same MSM that claims its the public’s right to know every national security secret of the Bush administration has virtually ignored this still incomplete story of a former National Security Advisor stealing, destroying… and now apparently “dead dropping” classified documents relating to the government’s response to terrorist acts.

Think they’d be as quiet if this had been Condi Rice or Stephen Hadley? I guess they’re too busy with the real stories that affect our nation.

Here’s the official final report on the investigation. It concludes Bergler wasn’t passing the info off to others, which would seem to bolster the idea that this was simply an act of Clinton administration officials trying to cover up their actions related to dealing with terrorism. If the media would consider this as much of a public’s right to know as a discolored mole on the leg of a First Lady, I bet this case would make for an interesting piece of investigative journalism.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments

Via AP:

A group of House Republicans called Wednesday for a congressional investigation into the improper handling of classified documents by President Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger.

“Improper” is the understatement of the year.

Berger admitted last year that he deliberately took classified documents out of the National Archives in 2003 and destroyed some of them at his office. He pleaded guilty in federal court to one charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material and was fined $50,000.

Ten lawmakers led by House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, R- Calif., and Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., released a letter calling for the House Government Reform Committee to investigate.

They asked the committee to determine whether any documents were missing from Clinton administration terrorism records, to review security measures for classified documents and to seek testimony from Berger.

Berger ought to be sitting in jail and awaiting trial right now. Don’t know what a Congressional investigation will provide other than to remind the public about the lengths the Democrats will go through to cover up their pathetic legacy of corruption and failure.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (10) Comments
The Cover Up Continues
September 7th, 2006 2:01 pm

Democrats are suddenly opposed to free speech, now that ABC is allegedly airing a miniseries that depicts the Clinton administration buffoons as anything but terrorist-killing superheroes of the universe.

A furious Bill Clinton is warning ABC that its mini-series “The Path to 9/11″ grossly misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden - and he is demanding the network “pull the drama” if changes aren’t made.

What’s he going to do if they don’t… Vince Foster them?

Clinton pointedly refuted several fictionalized scenes that he claims insinuate he was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to care about bin Laden and that a top adviser pulled the plug on CIA operatives who were just moments away from bagging the terror master, according to a letter to ABC boss Bob Iger obtained by The Post.

Fictionalized? According to the 9/11 Commission’s Report:

Clarke wrote to Berger’s deputy on February 10 that the military was then doing targeting work to hit the main camp with cruise missiles and should be in position to strike the following morning. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert appears to have been briefed on the situation.

No strike was launched. By February 12 Bin Ladin had apparently moved on, and the immediate strike plans became moot. According to CIA and Defense officials, policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with Bin Ladin or close by. Clarke told us the strike was called off after consultations with Director Tenet because the intelligence was dubious, and it seemed to Clarke as if the CIA was presenting an option to attack America’s best counterterrorism ally in the Gulf. The lead CIA official in the field, Gary Schroen, felt that the intelligence reporting in this case was very reliable; the Bin Ladin unit chief, “Mike,” agreed. Schroen believes today that this was a lost opportunity to kill Bin Ladin before 9/11.


The former president also disputed the portrayal of then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as having tipped off Pakistani officials that a strike was coming, giving bin Laden a chance to flee.

He’s right. It wasn’t Albright and Pakistan, it was Richard Clarke and the UAE:

On March 7, 1999, Clarke called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and Bin Ladin. Clarke later wrote in a memorandum of this conversation that the call had been approved at an interagency meeting and cleared with the CIA. When the former Bin Ladin unit chief found out about Clarke’s call, he questioned CIA officials, who denied having given such a clearance. Imagery confirmed that less than a week after Clarke’s phone call the camp was hurriedly dismantled, and the site was deserted. CIA officers, including Deputy Director for Operations Pavitt, were irate. “Mike” thought the dismantling of the camp erased a possible site for targeting Bin Ladin.

And then there’s Sandy Bergler. You remember him, don’t you? He’s the former Clinton National Security Adviser and policy adviser to the John Kerry presidential campaign who pled guilty to stealing and destroying “sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration’s handling of al-Qaida terror threats”. Well, he’s written a letter to ABC as well:

I am especially troubled by a scene described to me in which CIA operatives in Afghanistan have al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in their sights and seek authorization to attack. This is followed by a scene in which an actor portraying “Sandy Berger” refuses on behalf of the President to authorize a strike despite the urgent pleadings of CIA officials. This alleged “missed opportunity” to get bin Laden is followed by al Qaeda’s attack on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and eventually, the devastating events of 9/11.

No such episode ever occurred – nor did anything like it. There is nothing in the 9/11 Commission Report (the purported basis of your film) to support this portrayal and the fabrication of this scene (of such apparent magnitude) cannot be justified under any reasonable definition of dramatic license. In no instance did President Clinton or I ever fail to support a request from the CIA or US military to authorize an operation against bin Laden or al Qaeda.

Oh really? Accordng to the 9/11 Commission’s Report, Berger was involved in at least 4 occurences of “failing to support” such requests.

1. Early 1998:

In Washington, Berger expressed doubt about the dependability of the tribals. In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted.

Then, even after the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania:

2. Dec. 4, 1999:

National Security Council counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke sent Berger a memo suggesting a strike against al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan. According to the commission, however, in the “margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, ‘no.’

2. August 2000:

Berger was presented with a plan to attack bin Laden based on aerial surveillance from a “Predator” drone. “In the memo’s margin,” the commission said, “Berger wrote that before considering action, ‘I will want more than verified location: we will need, at least, data on pattern of movements to provide some assurance he will remain in place.’”

3. June 1999:

The potential target was an al-Qaida terrorist camp in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms. But the commission cites Berger’s handwritten notes on the meeting paper, which referred to “the presence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60-65 casualties.” The Berger notes said, “if he responds, we’re blamed.”

But aside from all that, yeah, the movie’s inaccurate.

But, unfortunately it appears ABC has caved to the Clinton threats. (But is it really a surprise that Robert Iger would step in?)

Makes one wonder even more just what was in those “sensitive after-action reports on the Clinton administration’s handling of al-Qaida terror threats” that Sandy Bergler stole from the National Archives and subsequently destroyed.

I apologize for insinuating that the Clinton administration didn’t have an approach to dealing with terrorism. I’ve uncovered proof of just how they dealt with it:

Update 2:
In response to the argument that the Clinton administration didn’t pass on a chance to get bin Laden… Here are Clinton’s own words (audio file).

“Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again.

They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here, because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

And if a tape recording of Bill Clinton admitting such isn’t enough, how about videotape of bin Laden from a U.S. drone plane? As NBC rightly asks: “The CIA had pictures. Why wasn’t the al-Qaida leader captured or killed?” Maybe the answer lies somewhere in the ruins of Sandy Bergler’s shredder.

Update 3:
Looks like Democrats are actually threatening what amounts to true censorship.

Update 4:

Update 5:
Is this Stolen Honor, Part 2 (hat tip: Allah)?

Sinclair Broadcasting owns 62 local TV stations around the country. It planned to air Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal on about 40 of them in October 2004. That would be right before the presidential election. But the Kerry campaign got wind of it and threatened Sinclair that its licenses might be in jeopardy if it aired the doc and Kerry happened to win.

Update 6:
Feel free to contact ABC and let them know what you think about this.

ABC, Inc.
500 S. Buena Vista Street
Burbank, CA 91521-4551
Web Form: http://abc.go.com/site/contactus.html
(818) 460-7477

Update 7:
Here’s an interesting take on this whole episode:

A Right and Responsibility to Speak Out
America has always been stronger when we have not only proclaimed free speech, but listened to it. Yes, in every war, there have been those who demand suppression and silencing….

Dismissing dissent is not only wrong, but dangerous when America’s leadership is unwilling to admit mistakes, unwilling to engage in honest discussion of the nation’s direction, and unwilling to hold itself accountable for the consequences of decisions made without genuine disclosure, or genuine debate….

Think this is the commentary of some rightwinger reflecting upon the Democrat leadership’s threats against ABC for airing the miniseries? Think again. It was spoken by former Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry in April of this year. Hypocrisy much?

Update 8:
Jamie Allman has a video rant about this story.

MKH is covering the edits…
SisterToldjah has a great roundup.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (71) Comments

It seems some in the Clinton administration aren’t all that excited about a new ABC mini-series that explores the origins of the September 11th plot. In fact, some officials are downright mad.

An upcoming TV mini-series about the origins of the Sept. 11 plot is provoking angry complaints from Democrats about the portrayal of the Clinton administration’s response to terrorism.

A statement from Samuel “Sandy” Berger, who was national security adviser to President Bill Clinton at the time, calls the scenes involving him “complete fabrications.”

Maybe they had to take come creative license based on the fact some of the original documentation magically disappeared.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (1) Comment

John Kerry was actually speaking about the fired-for-leaking-classified-information-CIA-analyst, Mary McCarthy, the Democrat appointee of a man who pled guilty to stealing and destroying classified documents and who also served as Kerry’s own presidential campaign adviser on foreign policy and national security, when he said:

“If you’re leaking to tell the truth, Americans are going to look at that, at least mitigate or think about what are the consequences that you . . . put on that person.”

…but his point supports the Bush administration in the Plame non-scandal, as well Afterall, a bipartisan Senate committee already found that Wilson lied about who sent him and what he found. And despite the fact that the information was declassified, and thus incapable of being “leaked”, the administration was simply “telling the truth” about who sent Wilson to Niger. According to John Kerry, this is a mitigating factor.

But make no mistake, Kerry was firmly against this leak… before he was for it.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (3) Comments

Back in November, Dana Priest wrote an article in the Washington Post describing secret CIA prisons around the world and she mentioned:

The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA’s unconventional war on terrorism. It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA’s covert actions. … the CIA has not even acknowledged the existence of its black sites…

To which I responded, So how does the Washington Post know about them?

Now we know.

The CIA fired a top intelligence analyst who admitted leaking classified information that led to a Pulitzer Prize-winning story about a network of secret CIA prisons, government officials say.

The officer was a senior analyst nearing retirement, Mary McCarthy, The Associated Press learned. Reached Friday evening at home, her husband would not confirm her firing.

Given her complete disregard for our national security, it should come as absolutely no surprise that she was appointed by Sandy Berger.

Yes, THAT Sandy Berger.

She’s also been a financial contributor to the DNC Services Corp., John Kerry and Dick Gephardt.

When the story first broke, I said:

I emailed Dana Priest, the National Staff Writer that authored this article to inquire. I doubt I’ll get a response.

Bottom line, someone leaked this to cast a shadow on the administration and its prosecution of the war.

I was right… on both counts.

Nice legacy you left us, Bubba.

Update: Several people have emailed me saying, “Don’t forget about Susan Lindauer” - She, of course, was the Democrat aide and former journalist who was caught spying for Iraq.

Others covering the story:
The American Thinker says, “Mary McCarthy makes four”:

Mary McCarthy is the fourth Clinton NSC member to assault the Bush White House. Ms. McCarthy, who was dismissed for leaking national security secrets to the press, is not the first Clintonite to undermine and assault the Bush White House. The biggest raging bulls attacking the White House have been former Clinton National Security characters.

Mary McCarthy was one. So was Joe Wilson – and his wife Val Plame, who presumably cooked up the phony Niger uranium documents scam, which now has Scooter Libby facing jailtime. Then we had Richard Clarke, who ran interference for the Clintonistas during the 9/11 Commission hearings, so that Clinton’s criminal neglect of Osama Bin Laden was somehow “overlooked.” The media never cites those Clinton connections. Joe Wilson is always “Ambassador,” but never “Clinton appointee.”

Then we have Sandy Burglar himself, of course. And Mary makes four.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (5) Comments
It’s that time of year again. Everyone’s coming up with their lists of things to remember from 2005. Including MSM. Here is their list:
  1. Hurricane Katrina - Bush blamed for slow response that led to lots of murder and mayhem among poor minorities in New Orleans. Nevermind the fact that most of the rumors of mischief were false and forget that the local and state governments completely fell down on the job or that environmentalists had fought the levee system. Nope, it was all Bush’s fault. Oh yeah, and the race issue was moot as well. But what the hell, “Bush doesn’t like black people” has a sentimental ring to it, don’t ya think? Here’s what I think.
  2. Papal Transition - A story that had nothing to do with Bush still couldn’t escape the liberals’ ‘blame Bush‘ beat.
  3. Iraq - The real story here is that a former dictatorship is quickly evolving into a free democracy, but MSM would rather focus on a liberal lunatic and her nutty protests. The MSM continues to press forward with the idea that Bush lied, while simultaneously ignoring that the very same “lies” were presented repeatedly by liberals in previous years.
  4. Supreme Court - Bush gets to pick two SCOTUS nominees. Liberals think the end times are near! Bush could nominated Mother Teresa and Ghandi and liberals would still oppose them as being advocates of “rolling back civil rights”.
  5. London Bombings - While many turned their thoughts to the victims and their families, many liberals were immediately able to assign blame to Bush.
  6. Asian Quake - Finally a natural disaster not blamed on Bush. Maybe they just forgot.
  7. Terri Schiavo - Bush and his evil vast right wing coalition tried to invade this poor woman’s life and impose their religious beliefs upon her. Nevermind the fact that her desires were not clearly determined when a judge ordered her starved to death. But never fear, at least the emaciated, thirsty corpse will give Democrats some campaign material.
  8. CIA Leak - Ah, finally the Valerie Plame non-story makes the top 10. Nevermind that nobody was charged with an illegal leak or the fact that Plame’s status as ‘covert’ is still in question. Nope, this was certainly a top 10 story because… well… MSM says so.
  9. Bush’s Struggles - WTF? The things the AP lists in this ridiculous category comprise all the retarded accusations tossed at Bush for the items listed 1 through 9. Are you telling me (a) that the AP couldn’t come up with one more item to round out the top 10 that they had to resort to a “Bush is just bad in general” category or (b) that the AP didn’t blast Bush enough in items 1 through 9 that they had to throw in one more parting shot before concluding the list. Beautiful.

Now, here’s my list of Top News Items that MSM Would Rather Ignore:

  1. Sandy Berger - Former National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, pleads guilty to stealing and destroying classified documents relating to the government’s response to terrorism.
  2. Saddam Hussein - Goes on trial.
  3. Iraq - 70% voter turnout in the new Iraqi democracy.
  4. Economic Growth - Almost 4.5 million new jobs since recovery began in mid-2003.
  5. Bush - Sworn-in to second term.
  6. Libya - Scraps its WMD programs.
  7. Afghanistan - Sees 50% turnout for parliamentary elections.
  8. No Child Left Behind - A success.
  9. Terrorism - In the Middle East, support for terrorism and terrorists is down, support for democracy is up.
  10. Democrat Struggles - Including seeing Dems switch parties and losing the fundraising race.
Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
Guilty of Being a Republican
November 3rd, 2005 8:45 am

As always, Investor’s Business Daily gets it (hat tip: Glenn):

If stealing and destroying secret documents, stuffing them into your pants and then lying about it isn’t a crime worthy of jail time, why is having a different recollection of events than Tim Russert?

Contrast the Libby charges with the slap on the wrist given Sandy Berger. He engaged in a real cover-up when he took classified documents useful to the 9-11 commission, destroyed some of them and then lied to the National Archives about it. No jail time, just a small fine. What was he hiding? Whom was he protecting?

Libby now joins Weinberger, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay and others who are guilty of nothing more than being loyal and effective servants of their party and president. Like the “Borking” of judicial nominees, the ongoing criminalization of political differences will only make it harder to attract good public servants if they can go to jail for merely talking to a reporter.

In the end, Libby may be able to echo the immortal words of Ray Donovan, Ronald Reagan’s labor secretary. After being acquitted in 1987 of corruption charges in a similar trial by media, he wondered: “Where do I go to get my reputation back?”

Read the whole thing.
Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
Funny how quick liberals are to toss out Constitutional rights when they belong to Conservatives. Not only are they calling for the heads of Tom Delay and Scooter Libby, both of whom have not even had their day in court yet… but they’re ready to lynch Karl Rove for simply being under “suspicion”. Is Harry Reid now saying suspicion of illegalities is enough? Maybe he should be careful what he wishes for. And if just being near or politically connected to an indictee is enough for resignation, there’s someone I’d like you to meet, Se�or Reid.

Aren’t these the same liberals that first laughed, then questioned the timing of the report of a former National Security Advisor stealing and destroying documents that could shed light on negligence of an administration in protecting the country from terrorists… and never called the admitted criminal so much as a “person under suscpicion”?

Yeah… we’ll take you guys serious on this stuff… when we finish laughing at your request.

Don Surber: “They Wanted A Hog, But Got A Scooter” - Does that come with a t-shirt?

The Anchoress: “We couldn’t get you with two years of investigations, but just resign, damn you, RESIGN.” - Exactly, I mean, after multiple electoral losses, it’s the only fair thing to do.

Ian: “Uh oh, the MINORITY leader in the Senate says Bush should apologize, I guess that means he better do it.” - Ian clearly forgets that every Republican in the majority somehow stole their respective elections and we’re not really the majority party.

Wizbang: “Some people are looking at the Libby case in a historical context. They point out the case of Sandy Berger, convicted of stealing and destroying classified documents, and punished with a $10,000 fine and loss of his security clearance for three years. Or Bill Clinton’s own plea-bargain on perjury charges, costing him is license to practice law in Arkansas. Others even bring up how five of Clinton’s cabinet officers were criminally investigated, with two indicted and one convicted (and a third apparently escaping indictment only by dying in a plane crash).” - Shhh, those don’t really count. They were all orchestrated by a vast right wing conspiracy. Move along, nothing to see here.

Gateway Pundit: It’s Hard to Frog March a Man on Crutches. - Title of the day!

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (2) Comments

Texas Rainmaker is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
Graphics by: Margolis Media Works | Style by: Lisa Sabin - E.Webscapes

Copyright © 2003-2006

Users Online



    • HuckPac.com

    • sidediv

    • sidediv


    Fatal error: Call to undefined function wswwpx_fold_category_list() in /home/texasrai/public_html/wp-content/themes/rainmaker/sidebar.php on line 62