Texas Rainmaker » Sandy Berger

The Berger Precedent
August 17th, 2005 8:26 am

Just a week ago, I posed the scenario, relating to Sandy Berger’s theft and destruction of national security documents:

Can you imagine all the speculations and conspiracies that would be currently running through MSM if this had been a Republican adminstration act? Michael Moore would already be working on his fifth sequel to the story and Dan Rather would be coming out of retirement to anchor this 24/7.

Well, wait no longer. Apparently some documents relating to Judge Roberts’ position on Affirmative Action from decades ago are missing.

A file folder containing papers from Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.’s work on affirmative action more than 20 years ago disappeared from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library after its review by two lawyers from the White House and the Justice Department in July, according to officials at the library and the National Archives and Records Administration.

…and Democrats are wasting no time calling for full investigations.

The lost file has also aroused some concern on Capitol Hill. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, wrote yesterday to R. Duke Blackwood, executive director of the Reagan Library, asking that he “continue to investigate thoroughly” the missing affirmative action file and “clarify the basis upon which you believe you have reconstructed that file.” And Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) requested a Justice Department investigation because one of the agency’s lawyers had seen the documents involved.

Wouldn’t it have been nice if these guys were as concerned with the admitted theft and destruction of national security information…

…and MSM is jumping on the “blame Bush” bandwagon. The article seems to try to focus on the review by White House and Justice Department lawyers, even though the files were returned and later lost by archive officials transferring them to new folders.

A file folder containing papers from Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.’s work on affirmative action more than 20 years ago disappeared from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library after its review by two lawyers from the White House and the Justice Department in July, according to officials at the library and the National Archives and Records Administration.

Sharon Fawcett, the assistant archivist for presidential libraries, said

“[T]he folder was evidently lost later when all of the Roberts documents were transferred to new, acid-free folders and reorganized in anticipation of their disclosure to the Senate and news media.” It is “very difficult to believe it’s anyone other than ourselves responsible for this loss.”

So really, this story has nothing to do with the review by “two lawyers from the White House and the Justice Department in July.” Just another insertion of irrelevant facts to pin something on the “Bush people”.

But isn’t it funny how top Democrats can call “for a full investigation” into a matter where 20 year old documents relating to a guy’s opinion of affirmative action are misplaced during an archive transfer, when they “all laughed” at a story of one of their own actually stealing and destroying documents on national security?

Others:
LaShawn addresses the serious nature of the Roberts’ documents, tongue firmly planted in cheek.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments

Democrats Atta Know Better II
August 11th, 2005 7:59 pm

As I re-read the Sandy Bergler incident and his subsequent plea deal, I’m more and more convinced he successfully got rid of information detrimental to the Clinton administration relating to its handling of the threat of terrorism.

The terms of Berger’s agreement required him to acknowledge to the Justice Department the circumstances of the episode. Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business. Despite his earlier claims that the theft was “inadvertant”. It’s clear he was going to deny until he was caught.

The documents Bergler stole and destroyed were authored by Richard Clarke. The same Richard Clarke who said, in 1999, that:

Clarke did provide new information in defense of Clinton’s decision to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for bin Laden’s role in the Aug. 7 embassy bombings.

While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is “sure” that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.

Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa’s current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.

Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike, Clarke said, the president “would have been derelict in his duties if he didn’t blow up the facility.”

Remember, in addition to learning the events leading up to 9/11, many people were looking to the 9/11 Commission’s Report to see if evidence existed linking Iraq and al-Qaeda. Since Richard Clarke had already adamantly acknowledged that link in 1999, it’s safe to assume that Sandy Bergler’s thievery successfully removed relevant information on Clinton administration officials’ knowledge of and reactions to such a link. If such information had been produced to the 9/11 Commission, imagine the storm it would’ve caused in supporting the Bush administration’s position and casting the Clinton administration further into one of inaction in the face of danger.

We ought to apply Hillary’s question to these criminals: What did they know and when did they know it?

And who in the hell in the Justice Department authorized such a plea deal? Arthur Andersen went out of business for shredding documents. Executives have been sent to prison for shredding documents. None of which deal with National Security. And none of which were systematically shredded by hand with a simple pair of scissors. This was an intentional act aimed at covering up something. The question that ought to be thoroughly investigated is what was it?

Can you imagine all the speculations and conspiracies that would be currently running through MSM if this had been a Republican adminstration act? Michael Moore would already be working on his fifth sequel to the story and Dan Rather would be coming out of retirement to anchor this 24/7.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (3) Comments

Democrats Atta Know Better
August 11th, 2005 2:51 pm

Did Democrats systematically engage in a calculated coverup to hide the fact that the Clinton Administration dropped the ball on al-Qaeda? The Left had a field day with the “it happened on George W. Bush’s watch” mantra. But the facts seem to be adding up to a scenario much different… and much more focused on Democrats instead.

From Fox:

On Wednesday, a source familiar with the Sept. 11 commission - formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States - told FOX News that aides who still had security clearances had gone back to the National Archives outside Washington, D.C., to review notes on Atta and any information the U.S. government had on him and his terror cell before the Sept. 11 attacks. The source acknowledged that the aides were looking for a memo about a briefing given to four staff members by defense intelligence officials during an overseas trip to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in the fall of 2003.

In fact, the briefing was in October, 2003.

From WaPo.com:

Berger reviewed copies of thousands of documents on July 18, Sept. 2 and Oct. 2, 2003, Breuer said. Later in October, the Archives notified Berger that documents were missing.

Now we’re finding out the documents in the National Archives, about which the 9/11 Commission was briefed, contained information showing that our Intelligence Community knew of Mohammed Atta and other al-Qaeda terrorists well before 9/11.

Don’t forget, to the Clinton administration members, this was just a laughing matter.

Captain Ed adds some insight beyond the “Bergler coincidence”. He points to Jamie Gorelick’s participation on the 9/11 Commission, considering she was Deputy Attorney General for the Clinton Administration who had “established a heightened ‘wall’ prohibiting the sharing of intelligence information and criminal information” at the Justice Department and the fact that she had much to gain from the “blame [being placed] on the intelligence community rather than the bureaucracy which stripped it of its ability to act in the interests of our security.”

In April, 2004, James Sensenbrenner challenged Gorelick’s position on the 9/11 Commission and said, “I believe the commission’s work and independence will be fatally damaged by the continued participation of Ms. Gorelick as a commissioner.” Maybe he was on to something.

Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Democrat Lee Hamilton, curiously said, just a few days ago:

“The Sept. 11 commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohammed Atta or of his cell, had we learned of it obviously it would’ve been a major focus of our investigation.”

But now a spokesman for the Commission contradicts Hamilton’s claim:

The Sept. 11 commission knew military intelligence officials had identified lead hijacker Mohamed Atta as a member of al-Qaida who might be part of U.S.-based terror cell more than a year before the terror attacks but decided not to include that in its final report, a spokesman acknowledged Thursday.

So who is lying? And why?

I agree with Ed, Congress needs to get to the bottom of this… and now!

Update: Rusty has followed my lead with this story… even though he posted a full day before me, I know he was reading my thoughts before I wrote them down. Some kinda Darth Vader mindmeld stuff, I think. He wants to know who the broken link was that prevented key information from getting to those who could act. He doesn’t blame the person, but accurately focuses on the “Gorelick Barrier”.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments

Only the Democrats… - Part 2
March 31st, 2005 5:49 pm

Remember the story of Sandy Bergler and the missing classified documents? Well, he finally plead guilty to stealing the classified documents. But he and his fans can’t seem to comprehend why we have laws in this country. When the news broke, Bill Clinton, the man who hired this guy to be National Security Advisor laughed. Now wonder the Democrats can’t win an election… they view national security as a joke.

“Berger and his lawyer, Lanny Breuer, have said Berger knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket and pants…” and “he called the episode an honest mistake…”

Many Democrats, including former President Clinton, suggested politics were behind disclosure of the probe…

or maybe the fact that HE COMMITTED A CRIME…

Were those document important? “The materials related to a 2000 report on how government reacted to the al-Qaida terror threat prior to the millennium celebrations.” After action reports from a massive terror plot just nine months before September 11, 2001. How could those really be important?

So what ever became of those classified national security documents he shoved in his pants? The article says “he returned most of the documents, but some still are missing.”

And that, my friends, is National Security in the Clinton Adminstration.

Others
Michael links with a post only us parents of toddlers can appreciate. Come on vamanos…
Rusty likes the pic…
Michelle Malkin hits Generation Why with its second Malk-a-lanche in two weeks. Won’t my two regular visitors be impressed!

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments

Only the Democrats…
July 21st, 2004 10:26 am

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.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments

The coverup begins…
July 20th, 2004 3:33 am

President Clinton’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.

Trying to clean up the mess, eh?

“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.

Oh, just needed some reading material for the bathroom at home? Does anyone buy this line? I mean, he TOOK THE DAMN DOCUMENTS and he’s claiming he had no intention of withholding them? Come on, this is clintonesque.

He regrets the sloppiness? TRANSLATION: I’m sorry I got caught.

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.

But of course not. But hey, we should all just assume they were irrelevant documents, right? I mean, we should think this was all some big misunderstanding…

“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.

Yeah, try that defense the next time you rob a bank. “But when asked, I returned all the money….well, except the money I’d already spent”.

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.

STICKING THEM IN HIS JACKET AND PANTS…. HIS JACKET AND PANTS!!!! This isn’t just a case of forgetting to leave them behind when he’s done reading them, this is willful THEFT.

BUT, he claims:

“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.

Now let’s review his statements again, together:

I inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives … by sticking them in [my] jacket and pants…

Holy hell. Did he really just say that?????

What’s sadder is that someone out there is going to buy this crap.

By the way, are we supposed to assume they were irrelevant documents? We really shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that they were important simply because the NSA for the Clinton administration took them before the 9/11 Commission could see them, right? We really ought to give them the benefit of the doubt and still blame Bush, right?

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.

Or not…

I guess some people will do anything to hide the real legacy of the Clinton administration.

These people really think Americans are idiots. It’s one thing to carry out this deed in the first place, but to have such disrespect for the country to have a defense like that is unconscionable.

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.

Well, we know what kind of administration we could expect, huh. I’m gonna make a stretch and say, “no thanks” now.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (1) Comment

THEY LIED TO AMERICA!!!
June 26th, 2004 9:26 am

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” - President Bill Clinton (February 4, 1998)

“If (Saddam) accepts (the UN Resolutions to disarm), force will not be necessary. If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences.” - President Bill Clinton (February 17, 1998)

“Well, (Saddam) will conclude that the international community has lost its will (if they do not act). He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal.” - President Bill Clinton (February 17, 1998)

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.” - President Bill Clinton (February 17, 1998)

“The risks that the leader of a rogue state can use biological or chemical weapons on us or our allies is the greatest security risk we face,” - Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (February 18, 1998)

“The only answer to aggression and outlaw behaviour is firmness. . . He (Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983.” - National Security Adviser Sandy Berger (February 18, 1998)

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” - Representative Nancy Pelosi CA (December 16, 1998)

“There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It’s just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies.” - Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (November 10, 1999)

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the Middle East. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” - Senator Carl Levin (Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee) (September 19, 2002)

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” - Senator Ted Kennedy MA (September 27, 2002)

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability. It is now October of 2002. ” - Senator Robert Byrd WV (October 2002)

“Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. … I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.” - Bill Clinton, 1998

“The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm’s way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq’s military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. … Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. … But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America’s vital interests, we will do so.” - Bill Clinton, 1998

“I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in [Saddam’s] hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” - John Kerry, 1998

I can’t believe they all lied to America about Saddam and the threat he posed to us. They ought to be ashamed.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments

« Previous Page —

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

Can you imagine all the speculations and conspiracies that would be currently running through MSM if this had been a Republican adminstration act? Michael Moore would already be working on his fifth sequel to the story and Dan Rather would be coming out of retirement to anchor this 24/7.

Clarke did provide new information in defense of Clinton’s decision to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for bin Laden’s role in the Aug. 7 embassy bombings.

Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa’s current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.

Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike, Clarke said, the president “would have been derelict in his duties if he didn’t blow up the facility.”

Berger reviewed copies of thousands of documents on July 18, Sept. 2 and Oct. 2, 2003, Breuer said. Later in October, the Archives notified Berger that documents were missing.

“The Sept. 11 commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohammed Atta or of his cell, had we learned of it obviously it would’ve been a major focus of our investigation.”