Sandy Berger...

[nonews]

Crooks on both sides of the aisle!
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061221/D8M4TNQ80.html

[trotsky]

1. Yeah, OK, same thing as starting an illegal war.

You got us there. :eyes:

[Cooley Hurd]

2. All this according to a report from Alberto Gonzales' DOJ?

Trustworthy...NOT.:thumbsdown:

[nonews]

5. Caught on tape!

Berger was caught on tape--They're all crooks!!!

[Cooley Hurd]

6. Again... this coming from Gonzales' DOJ?

Tape or no tape, it's clear the Inspector-General has an agenda. Speaking of "documents," when are Bush 41 and Reagan's presidential papers going to see the light of day? Hmmm, I believe the answer is NEVER - the Chimpenfuerer reclassified the whole bunch. Wanna talk about someone trying to HIDE something...:eyes:

[DoYouEverWonder]

14. Read the whole story

Berger did some really strange stuff and he's admitted to it.

I don't know what he's afraid of, or what he's trying to hide, but he's acting freaked out about something.

[leveymg]

56. The docs were summaries of CIA reports on the entry into the U.S. of the Flt. 77 hijackers.

on January 15, 2000 after the NSA and CIA tracked Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khaid al-Midhar to an Al-Qaeda planning summit in Kuala Lumpur held over the New Year, 2000.

The FBI Inspector General's report issued in June 2004 revealed that the CIA's CounterTerrorism Center (CTC) was fully aware that the pair had flown into LAX on 1/15/00. The FBI liaison officer at CTC then drafted a cable to the Bureau's National Security Unit in NY, then headed by John O'Neill, but the FBI laison was ordered to withhold transmission of that cable by the Center Director (Cofer Black) and the CIA Deputy Director of Operations. The CIA didn't trust O'Neill, and vis-a-versa. The cable was never sent. However, CIA Director George Tenet was repeatedly briefed about the Kuala Lumpur meeting and al-Midhar and al-Hazmi.

Yes, Sandy Berger was probably in the loop for that action, at least after the fact. The documents he copied and carried out of the National Archives reading room are described as drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the handling of Al Qaeda terror threats during the "Millenium Threat". That would have included information about the circumstances of the entry of al-Hazmi and al-Midhar.

The thing to bear in mind about the Flight 77 hijackers, is that the CIA was well aware of their travels, their plans (the 9/11 and USS Cole attacks were discussed in Kuala Lumpur, and that meeting was observed by the CIA and "half-dozen allied agencies", acording to Tenet's testimony before the 2002 Joint Congressional Intelligence Committee), and where the pair went and who they met afterwards (within hours of their arrival, they met with a Saudi Embassy official who worked for the Aviation Ministry, who gave them money and handed them off to another Saudi in San Diego, who was an FBI informant). The surveillance of these and other 9/11 plotters inside the US was carried out without FISA warrants but with the consensual monitoring of several double-agents working for foreign intelligence agencies.

What happened to al-Hazmi and al-Midhar and the other principal 9/11 hijackers, who were also known to US intelligence, is well documented until mid-Summer, 2001, when George Tenet's hair "caught fire" and some FBI counter-terrorism people started freaking out. For reasons that no one has fully explained publicly, something went very wrong with this operation, and the CT operators knew it, but were prevented by the White House from rolling up the known al-Qaeda cells operating inside the country.

What really happened was that the White House ordered a stand-down of Counter-terrorism operations after Dubya came back from Genoa in late July, and was safely installed at his well-guarded Ranch in Crawford. The Administration's own brand-new Counter-terrorism initiative was supposed to be unveiled at the 09/04/01 Principal's Meeting, the day the head of Pakistani ISI intelligence, Gen. Ahmed, flew in for consulations, and the head of Saudi intellignce, Prince Turki, suddenly resigned. See,

Scoop: UQ Wire: THE CRIMES OF 9/11 (Part 4)
In early summer 2001 , US officials received numerous warnings from domestic and foreign intelligence agencies that al-Qaeda terrorists planned ...
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00257.htm

9/11 happened under Bush's watch, but the monitoring and penetration operation was started under the Clinton Administration. Obviously, Bush's team is reponsible for the fact that the attacks occurred. The Bushites and the GOP would like to spread the blame as widely as they can, and have blackmailed some Democrats. That explains the 9/11 Commission whitewash, and Sandy Berger's actions.

[leveymg]

62. No, not a crook - but, he thought he had something to hide.

See my post, above, "The docs were summaries of CIA reports on the entry into the U.S. of the Flt. 77 hijackers".

Read the article it links to, and come back, and we can discuss this.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NMDemDist2]

4. oh bullshit

berger taking copies of his memos to prepare for a hearing is comparable to shoveling billions in no bid contracts to Halliburton ?how? exactly??

Berger may have screwed up a technicality of the law, but he didn't make a dime off it and it harmed no one.

I call bullshit

[nonews]

10. ALL Politicians...

My point being that all politicians are worthless from the local level all the way up. When was the last time that anyone of them really cared about helping the people they represent and the country in general?

[trumad]

12. So would you call Barney Frank worthless

or Al Gore when he was VP... Or Henry Waxman?

Your generalizations are childish.

[nonews]

16. Of Course not

There are only a small handful of politicians that really take their jobs seriously.

[JacksonWest]

Berger is being up front about what he did.

Mistakes will be made. To think otherwise would make you a fundie fun bag. Your point is without merit. Berger wasn't a politician. He wasn't an elected offical. And his actions are not indicative of all politicians.

Great point. Christ.

[wicket]

43. But you said ALL politicians

:shrug:

[rurallib]

18. Like comparing blowjobs to starting a war of choice

those are equal too. (What bullshit - there is a small difference)

[Kazak]

26. By golly...

I'd better vote for republicans in the next election...

:puke:

[nonews]

27. No...

"I'd better vote for republicans in the next election... "
vote for the best candidate that you think will represent your views.

[Buzz Clik]

28. Good plan.

So, what's the point of this thread? It simply rehashes the same old shit from the right in smearing Berger. The case has been closed for months.

[trotsky]

31. "the best candidate that you think will represent your views"

Well, since this is DEMOCRATIC Underground, that's generally going to be the Democrat, don't you think?

I mean, even a corrupt Democrat will represent my views better than a law-abiding Republican (do they exist?).

[nonews]

35. Hmmmm!

DemocraTIC refers to a process; a process that dates back to the Founding Fathers. DemocRAT refers to the actual person. If the Democratic Underground follows its title, it should include anyone who supports the Democratic process.

[trotsky]

42. Hmmmm indeed!

DemocratIC as in Democratic Party. Have you read the rules yet?

[cali]

29. Really?

what do you think of Bernie Sanders? Feinstein? Boxer? Leahy? Just to mention a few. Are they all just crooks out to get what they can? Make your case.

[nonews]

30. only Feinstein

Bernie Sanders? Feinstein? Boxer? Leahy?

I only like Feinstein, but that is only me.

[cali]

34. I didn't ask whether you liked them

I asked whether they are, as you claim, all crooked, and only in it for themselves? And sorry, I didn't mean Feinstein- I meant Feingold.

[ProfessorGAC]

33. Then Why Are You Here On A Political Website?

If they are all so contemptible, what's the point of caring? Apparently, you think some aren't and there is a point to be made by pointing out those who are crooks.

The lapses in your logic are numbing.
The Professor

[maxrandb]

45. That's wrong! It's also a Wing-nut Ploy

When I hear "they're all corrupt", I know that it's coming from a wing-nut. Conservatives can only make themselves look good by making others look bad. It's in their nature. It's the "spoiled frickin brat" defense; "He did it too!!".

Wing-nuts love it when they have example, after example, after example, after example of their shitty little ass-faced criminals (Delay, Cunningham, Cheney, Bush, Ney, Foley, Abrahamhoff, Lay, McCain, Romney, and the lists goes on and on)...and then they can point at one liberal and say; "see, they're all corrupt, so don't pay any attention to the crooks on our side."

[godai]

11. They were originals and he pleaded guilty

He asked to leave the building for a break, with documents stuffed in his socks, then hid them at a nearby construction site, where he later retrieved them. How can anyone defend this? I'd love to know the contents of those documents. Maybe Berger's your hero but not mine. No one says it's the same as the Iraq war but this was pathetic and humiliating.

[NMDemDist2]

17. take a read over here chum

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230001

[nonews]

21. Media Matters

here is a Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America

[trumad]

24. I don't get why your posting a Wikipedia on Media Matters?

Are you saying they're not credible?

[nonews]

25. Media...

Of course. There are both left and right leaning research groups. This happens to be a left leaning one as Drudge is a right leaning site.

[NMDemDist2]

32. How about the Wall ST Journal? is that right leaning enough for you?

The Berger File
Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Apr 8, 2005. pg. A.12

Some people won’t let a bad conspiracy theory go. We’re referring to those who loudly assert that former NSC adviser Sandy Berger was trying to protect the Clinton Administration when he illegally removed copies of sensitive documents from the National Archives in late 2003.

On Wednesday, we quoted Justice Department prosecutor Noel Hillman that no original documents were destroyed, and that the contents of all five at issue still exist and were made available to the 9/11 Commission. But that point didn’t register with some readers, who continue to suggest a vast, well, apparently a vast left- and right- wing conspiracy. The Washington Times, the Rocky Mountain News and former Clintonite Dick Morris have also been peddling dark suspicions based on misinformation.
The confusion seems to stem from the mistaken idea that there were handwritten notes by various Clinton Administration officials in the margins of these documents, which Mr. Berger may have been able to destroy. But that’s simply an “urban myth,” prosecutor Hillman tells us, based on a leak last July that was “so inaccurate as to be laughable.” In fact, the five iterations of the anti-terror “after- action” report at issue in the case were printed out from a hard drive at the Archives and have no notations at all.

“Those documents, emphatically, without doubt — I reviewed them myself — don’t have notations on them,” Mr. Hillman tells us. Further, “there is no evidence after comprehensive investigation to suggest he took anything other than the five documents at issue and they didn’t have notes.” Mr. Berger’s sentencing is scheduled for July, and Mr. Hillman assures us Justice’s sentencing memo will lay out the facts and “make sure Mr. Berger explains what he did and why he did it.”

[nonews]

36. old news EOM

[NMDemDist2]

38. which brings me back to my original point

bullshit

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EOTE]

47. How about you attack the content of the article...

instead of attacking the messenger? I'm really confused as to why you posted that wikipedia entry. Are you saying they've got a liberal bias? Well, I think truth has a liberal bias. I'm really confused as to the point of your postings. Do you care to discredit the Media Matters article at all? I'd really like you to.

[godai]

40. I looked at a 2 year old story. He pleaded GUILTY since then!

Why is this guy supposed to be our hero? There was something interesting in those documents or he wouldn't have snuck them out, cut them into little pieces.

[NMDemDist2]

44. not according to the prosecutor

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2958875&mesg_id=2959109

[underpants]

49. They WEREN'T the originals and the sock story was made up by Rush

it made it's way onto Fox news within hours. This was a situation in which Berger was wrong to make copies AND wrong to take them with him but that was all it was.

What you should learn out of this is how the RW noise machine works. RW hate radio establishes something, in your head, as a fact and then Fox News repeats it (usually with a "some people say..." lead in)and then it makes its way to the rest of the main stream media (whose executives are all conservative republicans)

wake up

[leveymg]

59. The "originals" were in his brief case. The "docs in his socks" were copies

or notes Berger had himself taken of the archive records (no note-taking allowed for Top Secret files), according to earlier reports.

As the article above makes clear, even the originals in the Archive files had been copied by the Archives and were printouts of hard drives that had already been copied by other federal agencies. Berger didn't take anything that wasn't backed-up elsewhere.

Why did he take this risk?

See my post above -- "The docs were summaries of CIA reports on the entry into the U.S. of the Flt. 77 hijackers" -- for a longer take on the context behind his actions.

[Buzz Clik]

7. Flame bait. Author needs a name change: non-news

[spanone]

8. apples & oranges...nice try.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nonews]

13. Right

"It's just that there are more crooks on your side."

right there in that quote, you have proved my point. We should not have to be one particular "side." We should all work for the common good and the country in general.

[trumad]

15. LOL

Bright one here?

[desi]

20. Sorry my friend..

When someone makes a ludicrous comment like this: "My point being that all politicians are worthless from the local level all the way up." they (you) should expect to be challenged and ridiculed.

[nonews]

22. just corrected myself..thanks guys

[Canuckistanian]

19. He should have been executed for treason.

Is that what you wanted to hear?

First off, nowhere in the article does it mention that all of these documents were

copies

of the originals. Do you think that ANY security archive is just going to let ORIGINAL documents walk out the door?

Second, most of this "testimony" is from rabidly partisan DOJ officials who had a vested interest in implicating a former official from another party. And, as we've seen many, many times, this DOJ is among the dirtiest ever in history.

How about this line?

"He headed toward a construction area. ... Mr. Berger looked up and down the street, up into the windows of the Archives and the DOJ (Department of Justice), and did not see anyone," the interview notes said.

Then who was there to see Sandy Berger "not seeing anyone"?

[Norquist Nemesis]

23. It surprised when it came out that this happened

which BTW was what seems EONS ago. The Bushetals and RW hate radio had great fun with it! "Sandy Burglar" was word of the day for a good two or three months for them. Funny thing, too. Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham, and a few others barely made the 24/7 news cycle.

[devilgrrl]

37. Can you say

[kmla]

39. Geez. This had been discussed and laid to rest MONTHS ago...

So timely a post.

And since we're talking "current" events, did you know...

Elvis died!
President Nixon resigned!
John Travolta is starring in a movie about disco dancing!

And also, Ford is going to downsize and re-style the Mustang a little bit, and call it the Mustang II. Sure to be a big seller!

[nonews]

41. first time

This is the first time that we have learned that he tore material up and tried to retrieve papers he "hid" at a trach site. It sounds a lot worse then the original story.

[ProfessorGAC]

50. Worse To Whom?

It sounds worse if you believe the most recent "revelations". If one doesn't accept this as fact, then it's not worse. It's old news.

In addition, there is NOTHING in your article that establishes that what he was supposedly tearing up were the papers in question. That's strictly conjecture, put forth by a DoJ lookng to cover their own tails.
The Professor

[cali]

51. That's true.

But Berger's already been sentenced. Why use this story, as you did, to slam all dem politicians? Whether it's worse or not worse, Berger's malfeasance has little impact on anyone but his own reputation. It seems like such a non-story compared to the enormity of the crimes of this admin. Or don't you agree?

[Norquist Nemesis]

52. He admitted to it and was handed punishment IIRC

Seems to me that should have been the end of of it.

[seabeyond]

46. sandy berger and this event is the only right leverage to say all politicians

are crooked. and the absurd is what berger did is nothing compared to bushco crimes. being on right boards i see this berger issue come up often. they also like to ignore the facts, like with clintons blow job so they can compare two parties, minimizing the crimes of the right. it is a bogus smoke screen that only tends to comfort the right in their righteousness, validating their positions so as to not take responsibility for the parties criminal behavior.

berger isn't a hero. but it is clear the reality of what happened in this event. well documented. facts that are ignored. and it isn't a big deal

clinton is not a hero. but it is clear the impeachment and getting riled over a blow job was ridiculous.

the reality is..... clinton didn't lie in his official duties and had only one person prosecuted.

bushco hires known criminals (those that have broken law) and continues to break law and lies thru out his terms over and over

no comparison. republicans are corrupt. they cheat. they are hypocrites. they lie. they are greedy

they are not both the same. it is not even close to comparing the degree of corruptness.

[nonews]

54. Grand Jury...

"clinton didn't lie in his official duties and had only one person prosecuted."

He lied to the Grand Jury and lost his member to the Arkansas Bar as an attorney. These are just the facts.

[EOTE]

58. Wow....

You've been waiting since 2003 just to bring up this tripe? You've got some patience.

[seabeyond]

61. for a blow job. that blow job was not official duty. people all across

the country lie in court about marriage issues in divorce cases ect.... custody hearings and it is proven they lie and they do not get prosecuted for it. it is a given. even in court. that being said a blow job was not about his job.

but it is indicitive of the right whining to continually bring up the blow job and berger as if it is anyway comparison to the laws broken by republican.

is your position that the corrupt republican party, and bushco specifically is par with clinton blow job?

[Wiley50]

48. You Folks Need a Fire Extinguisher In Here Yet?

Oh, piss on it.

[Azathoth]

53. Berger deserves to get hosed

I have no idea what the hell he was trying to do, but whatever was going on, it seems clear that he was doing more than "reviewing notes."

[rpgamerd00d]

57. Typical Neocon Response to Current Events.

- Iraq going to hell
- Bush out of control
- Repukes get asses kicked in elections
- Dems about to launch investigations
- Voting system reform in progress

What does the Repuke post here at DU?

CLINTON !!!!11!one!!exclaimationpoint!!!

So typical.

/yawn

[Spoon]

60. Here's a hypocrisy test... defending Berger doesn't pass:

Report Says Rove Hid Archive Documents

By LARRY MARGASAK

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush's deputy chief of staff removed classified documents from the National Archives, hid them under a construction trailer and later tried to find the trash collector to retrieve them, the agency's internal watchdog said Wednesday.

The report was issued more than a year after Karl Rove pleaded guilty and received a criminal sentence for removing the documents.

Rove took the documents in the fall of 2003 while working to prepare himself and Bush administration witnesses for testimony to the Sept. 11 commission. Rove was authorized as the Bush administration's representative to make sure the commission got the correct classified materials.

...

"There is absolutely no way to determine if Rove swiped any of these original documents. Consequently, there is no way to ever know if the 9/11 Commission received all required materials," Davis said.

...


Rove pleaded guilty to unlawfully removing and retaining classified documents. He was fined $50,000, ordered to perform 100 hours of community service and was barred from access to classified material for three years.

Inspector General Paul Brachfeld reported that National Archives employees spotted Rove bending down and fiddling with something white around his ankles.

The employees did not feel at the time there was enough information to confront someone of Rove's stature, the report said. (editor's note: just puked a little LOL)

Later, when Rove was confronted by Archives officials about the missing documents, he lied by saying he did not take them, the report said.

...

Rove took a break to go outside without an escort while it was dark. He had taken four documents in his pockets.

"He headed toward a construction area. ... Mr. Rove looked up and down the street, up into the windows of the Archives and the DOJ (Department of Justice), and did not see anyone," the interview notes said.

He then slid the documents under a construction trailer, according to the inspector general. Rove acknowledged that he later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.

"He was aware of the risk he was taking," the inspector general's notes said. Rove then returned to the Archives building without fearing the documents would slip out of his pockets or that staff would notice that his pockets were bulging.

...

In October 2003, the report said, an Archives official called Rove to discuss missing documents from his visit two days earlier. The investigator's notes said, "Mr. Rove panicked because he realized he was caught."

The notes said that Rove had "destroyed, cut into small pieces, three of the four documents. These were put in the trash."

After the trash had been picked up, Rove "tried to find the trash collector but had no luck," the notes said.

----



End of fantasy

[trotsky]

63. Who's defending Berger?

I think it's a pretty damn near universal opinion that he broke the law. But he admitted it, and the case is closed. The OP wants to use this lone incident in an attempt to equate Berger's crime with the monstrous abuses of power we've seen by Republicans over the past 6 years. Give me a break.

[seabeyond]

64. have you read one post.... ever..... saying berger should not have been

charged. no one cares. he was punished. no one said he should or shouldn't be. so your hypocrisy test, consistently and inevitably, sits solely with the republican party once again, not to mention those in this thread comparing a blow job and berger event to republican corruption.

[Spoon]

66. Bad choice of words I guess, "Minimalizing" would be better...

Your "no one cares" comment exemplifies this. Obviously this incident doesn't compare to the many things the Bush admin has done, but I for one would love to know just WTF Berger was doing.

[seabeyond]

67. he was punished. no one is defending him or cares that he was punished

he broke the law. gets what he gets. no defending or anything else. he did it, he pays. period.

so no it does not exemplify shit.

no one is excusing. apologizing. protecting. justifying. rationalizing. blaming.

republicans do that. consistantly.

you dont have an argument.

[seabeyond]

68. you nor the other poster still havent addressed if a blow job and berger

= the republican party corruption, lies and criminal behavior. have you

[trotsky]

70. As I understand it, Berger was attempting to review...

the counter-terrorism efforts under the Clinton Administration. He wanted to go over what they had done back then, probably in preparation for the then-upcoming presidential campaign.

The 9/11 Commission already had copies of everything. It's not like Berger could take anything and destroy evidence of Clinton Admin incompetence. I'd like to know what's the worst the RW *thinks* Berger could have done.

[rpgamerd00d]

65. CLINTON !!!!!!!!! (the only defense of a desperate Repuke)

[godai]

69. Good point. We'd all be hanging Rove by his nuts.

I don't understand the attempts to compare this to * crimes. Compared to this, the posts indicate, * crimes are much worse. True, but not relevant. That's not the focus of the post. Berger is a jerk who got caught trying to hide something and pleaded guilty. * is not the point. Clinton is not the point. Berger's actions were pathetic.

[stanwyck]

71. Ah, a little Christmas gift for the depressed right

a diversion from their abysmal president, his failed administration, and the mid-term results.
Yes, Sandy Berger is giving the freepers something to hold onto, a momentary balm from their aches and pains. They can rant about him for the next week while swilling down their cocktails and champagne and tell themselves all is not lost.
Yes, this is how far the right has fallen. They're clinking glasses over Sandy Berger.
Oh, my.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

72. I'm going to lock this since the OP

is no longer with us.

best,
wakemeupwhenitsover
DU Moderator