Dem's Do It Again!!!! Sandy Berger

micah_07 · July 21st, 2004, 11:24 AM

Just when they get their hands caught in the cookie jar (or stuffing it in their socks or pants).........They have tried to turn the tables on the Republicans claiming that they only brought this story out to hurt Kerry! You Libs never cease to amaze me...Never owning up, never taking resposibility....(see Clinton, Kerrys military bashing, ect.) This could be treason! But I'm sure it was President Bushs fault for Berger STEALING the classified documents!

Bamaro · July 21st, 2004, 11:48 AM

To be fair, we dont know all the facts yet. I have heard from many sources (including Fox news) that the docs taken were either copies or originals that had copies.

In other words he didn't take them for any cover up purposes. The timing is very curious though since this has been known about for nearly a year but leaked out two days before the 911 report.

Queasy1 · July 21st, 2004, 11:56 AM

	Quote:	Bamaro
	To be fair, we dont know all the facts yet. I have heard from many sources (including Fox news) that the docs taken were either copies or originals that had copies. In other words he didn't take them for any cover up purposes. The timing is very curious though since this has been known about for nearly a year but leaked out two days before the 911 report.

Bamaro, not even hand-written notes about the content of those documents were supposed to be allowed out without proper clearance. This is highly-classified stuff that was being dealt with here.

Well, here check the following from this article

	Quote:
	Second, although Berger said he reviewed thousands of pages, he apparently homed in on a single document: the so-called "after-action report" on the Clinton administration's handling of the millennium plot of 1999/2000. Berger is said to have taken multiple copies of the same paper. He is also said to have taken those copies on at least two different days. There have been no reports that he took any other documents, which suggests that his choice of papers was quite specific, and not the result of simple carelessness. Third, it appears that Berger's "inadvertent" actions clearly aroused the suspicion of the professional staff at the Archives. Staff members there are said to have seen Berger concealing the papers; they became so concerned that they set up what was in effect a small sting operation to catch him. And sure enough, Berger took some more. Those witnesses went to their superiors, who ultimately went to the Justice Department. (There was no surveillance camera in the room in which Berger worked with the documents, meaning there is no videotape record of the incidents.) The documents Berger took — each copy of the millennium report is said to be in the range of 15 to 30 pages — were highly secret. They were classified at what is known as the "code word" level, which is the government's highest tier of secrecy. Any person who is authorized to remove such documents from a special secure room is required to do so in a locked case that is handcuffed to his or her wrist. It is not clear why Berger would focus solely on the millennium-plot report. But it is clear that the report has been the object of intense discussions during the September 11 investigation. The report was the result of a review done by Richard Clarke, then the White House counterterrorism chief, of efforts by the Clinton administration to stop terrorist plots at the turn of the year 2000. At several points in the September 11 commission hearings, Democrats pointed to the millennium case as an example of how a proper counterterrorism program should be run. But sources say the report suggests just the opposite. Clarke apparently concluded that the millennium plot was foiled by luck — a border agent in Washington State who happened to notice a nervous, sweating man who turned out to have explosives in his car — and not by the Clinton administration's savvy anti-terrorism work. The report also contains a number of recommendations to lessen the nation's vulnerability to terrorism, but few were actually implemented.

CrimsonNan · July 21st, 2004, 12:16 PM

If he wasn't doing something he knew he shouldn't be doing, he wouldn't have been stuffing papers in his Fruit of the Looms. Give us a break will ya Dems!!! We didn't fall off a turnip truck!

fosterkeats · July 21st, 2004, 01:02 PM

	Quote:	micah_07
	Just when they get their hands caught in the cookie jar (or stuffing it in their socks or pants).........They have tried to turn the tables on the Republicans claiming that they only brought this story out to hurt Kerry! You Libs never cease to amaze me...Never owning up, never taking resposibility....(see Clinton, Kerrys military bashing, ect.) This could be treason! But I'm sure it was President Bushs fault for Berger STEALING the classified documents!

It's the paranoia of the republicans that reigns supreme around here...

Quit blaming everything on Clinton et al...

Do you ever hear any liberals bringing up Nixon??? Of course not, b/c we're looking at the NOW, and right NOW, Bush has done a poor job with the economy, the environment, and foreign relations...

Quit pointing fingers and take some responsibility for a change... Not everything's "the liberals' fault"...

Queasy1 · July 21st, 2004, 01:07 PM

	Quote:	fosterkeats
	Do you ever hear any liberals bringing up Nixon???

Yes, quite often. Hitler, facist, racist, and a number of other names come out of liberal mouths when referring to Bush too.

	Quote:
	Of course not, b/c we're looking at the NOW, and right NOW, Bush has done a poor job with the economy, the environment, and foreign relations...

If you're looking at the now, why does John Kerry keep reminding everyone that her served in Vietnam?

And with foreign relations, I'm assuming you mean France and Germany, right?

Oh, and since Berger was consulting the Kerry team on national security up until yesterday, this very much has to do with the RIGHT NOW. Did Berger give the Kerry team information that could be used to attack Bush? We don't know because the folks at the National Archive don't know what was in the documents that Berger admitted to destroying. Also, why did Kerry keep Berger on his staff if Berger was under a serious investigation as this?

bandersnatch45 · July 21st, 2004, 01:10 PM

Foster, please stay on topic....Berger was caught stealing highly classified documents from the archive and smuggling them out in his underwear. There is currently a criminal investigation into this matter and the focus of that investigation is Berger. Hopefully he will be tried and then convicted and receive a punishment comensurate with this breach of national security.

TexasTide · July 21st, 2004, 01:18 PM

FK an enlightened liberal, years ahead of the rest of us common people. So what's happening right now in the present with Berger is in the past for FK.
I guess.

I just can't believe he's telling Republicans to take responsiblity when Berger admits to taking the documents yet claims his actions were "an honest mistake" while the liberals are "pointing fingers" at the Bush administration for "leaking" the information. Talk about not heeding your own advice.

Perhaps he doesn't realize Berger was Clinton's NSA and is a Liberal Democrat.

NBF_Bama_Cavalry · July 21st, 2004, 01:19 PM

	Quote:	fosterkeats
	It's the paranoia of the republicans that reigns supreme around here... Quit blaming everything on Clinton et al... Do you ever hear any liberals bringing up Nixon??? Of course not, b/c we're looking at the NOW, and right NOW, Bush has done a poor job with the economy, the environment, and foreign relations... Quit pointing fingers and take some responsibility for a change... Not everything's "the liberals' fault"...

I really don't understand why you have to resort to name-calling. Maybe it's just your personality type or some deep-seated hatred you have.

But anyway...

Why would anyone, liberal or otherwise, bring up Nixon today? He left office a long, long time ago and nothing Nixon did has any bearing on the issues of today. Sandy Berger was a part of the Clinton administration, vetted the documents at the request of Clinton, and apparently, quite knowingly and willingly, stole classified documents and compromised them. That makes the Clinton administration, and Democrat apologists in general, relevant in this discussion.

Poor job with the economy? Why do all the news sources, even the liberal ones, say that the economy has grown tremendously? To what part of the environment can you show a demonstrable detriment that was caused by the Bush administration? Foreign relations? The animals ain't attacking us, are they?

Just because micah_07 doesn't see the world through your distorted glasses doesn't make him a moron. Your personal attacks against people say a lot about you, though.

bandersnatch45 · July 21st, 2004, 01:41 PM

Linda Chavez takes a look at this whole situation of Sandy's socks...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/l...20040721.shtml

micah_07 · July 21st, 2004, 03:05 PM

All I simply said was that the Dem's seem to try and blame the Republicans everytime they get caught sticking something in their pants (or taking something out of them....Bill C). Once again FK makes my point for me....Thank you for being as predictable as the upcoming election!

Micah

Chukker Veteran · July 22nd, 2004, 05:46 AM

	Quote:	NBF_Bama_Cavalry
	Why would anyone, liberal or otherwise, bring up Nixon today? He left office a long, long time ago and nothing Nixon did has any bearing on the issues of today. .

In case you missed it, some of Nixon's henchmen are well entrenched in the Bush administration, up to their old tricks.

Burger has denied the stories of papers stuffed anywhere but in his pockets. But the lies about sock stuffing that so many eat up are simply an embellishment to divert from bush's failures.

NBF_Bama_Cavalry · July 22nd, 2004, 07:17 AM

	Quote:	Chukker Veteran
	In case you missed it, some of Nixon's henchmen are well entrenched in the Bush administration, up to their old tricks.

Which would make them "Bush henchmen". Nixon left office 30 years ago.

	Quote:
	Burger has denied the stories of papers stuffed anywhere but in his pockets. But the lies about sock stuffing that so many eat up are simply an embellishment to divert from bush's failures.

The issue is whether or not he took classified material and left it unsecured and/or destroyed it without proper authorization. I couldn't care less how he removed the material, that's irrelevant.

From the information that's available, it appears that he:

1. Took classified material and compromised it.
2. Acted at the request of the former president, Bill Clinton.
3. Destroyed at least part of the classified information.

I spent 20 years in the USAF and "protection of classifed" was a consistent theme. Everyone knew the procedures and the consequences for violating those procedures. As the former NSA, I expect that Sandy Berger also knew the procedures. Clandestinely removing classified material is a criminal activity. And that's regardless of whether the material is in his pockets, his socks, or hidden in a body cavity.

It was posted, "Quit blaming everything on Clinton et al..." . My point is that the Clinton administration is indeed, relevant in this case. Even Ray Charles could see that. Has it gotten to the point that conservatives cannot besmirch the name of the former president even if he's up to his eyeballs in the controversy?