More Revelations in Berger Inquiry -WP

[Rose Siding]

For the second day in a row, administration officials said yesterday that more of President Bush's aides knew about an investigation of former Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger than the White House originally acknowledged.

The question is sensitive because Democrats have charged that Republicans leaked word of the investigation to try to taint next week's Democratic National Convention and to distract attention from criticisms of Bush in the report of the commission investigating the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

A senior administration official, who refused to be identified, said that some National Security Council officials knew Berger -- who has resigned from his position as informal adviser to Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry -- was suspected of mishandling National Archives documents that were being sought by the commission.
...
Former Clinton press secretary Joe Lockhart, who is serving as a spokesman for Berger during the controversy, said the expanding circle of officials who the White House acknowledges had knowledge of the criminal investigation heightens his suspicion about the timing of this week's disclosure that Berger is under investigation.

"This is the third day in a row that the story has changed," Lockhart said. "First they said they didn't know. Then they said the counsel's office was aware. Now today they acknowledge the NSC was aware. Did the political operation know? Did Karl Rove know? I think it's time for them to come clean, say what they knew, when they knew it, and what role if anything they had in leaking it."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7104-2004Jul22.html

[Fovea]

1. Return of the revenge of the son of Plame.

When will these idiots learn?

Is this the only strategy left to Rove? Because if that is the case, then they should withdraw from the race now, and let their party find a real candidate.

Take a lesson from Johnson, another controversial Texan, and git.

[countmyvote4real]

4. And the list goes on: Michael M., Whoopi G., Linda R., Sandy B.

Anybody that publicly voices any opposition to this regime (from celebrities to the T-shirt couple in WV) will be ridiculed and held accountable for saying that the Emperor has no clothes.

[jean]

2. so glad to hear Joe Lockhart is on the scene!

"it's time for them to come clean, say what they knew, when they knew it, and what role if anything they had in leaking it."

nice touch for Joe to use Watergate era phrasing!

[Guaranteed]

6. It's fucking BRILLIANT!

LOL!!

:evilgrin:

Buy that guy a beer, for coming onto the scene just in time.

[AP]

3. The Dems have really found the chink in Rove's armor.

It seems that it's going to be very easy to re-spin this Berger thing as hollow political oportunism on Bush's part.

I think that idea is really going to take root because the ground is pretty fertile when it comes to voters thinking that Bush has no principles -- no north star -- other than to use whatever falls on his lap (whether it's 9/11 or anything else) to get votes (by slandering democrats) rather than as an opportunity to do what's right for America.

[Old and In the Way]

5. Bigger downside, I think.....

Do they want to impugn Sandy Berger's credentials now? At what point will Americans start looking at the Scortch America policy that this administration is conducting. Their attacks are getting out of hand.....and I think more and more people are seeing an administration that is "losing it".

[Guaranteed]

7. Seriously...a legitimate administration

shouldn't have to be attacking people left and right.

[hang a left]

8. Well what I would like to know is.....

What copies did Berger take, why did he take them, and when does he plan on using them? What was so important that he needed a copy of?
Obviously they weren't originals that were taken from the archives? Was it something that would implicate say....Tenet? Who else is still in the NSA left over from the Clinton administration. These are the questions that are the most mysterious to me.

[demoman123]

9. Here's an answer to some of your questions:

The documents that Berger has acknowledged taking -- some of which remain missing -- are different drafts of a January 2000 "after-action review" of how the government responded to terrorism plots at the turn of the millennium. The document was written by White House anti-terrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke, at Berger's direction when he was in government.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A4189-2004Jul21?language=printer

[hang a left]

10. Can you speculate on why he would need copies of these.

Do you think they might be used for blackmail, or perhaps to embarrass the outgoing regime?

[demoman123]

12. Here's my take, but you won't like it:

I think The Big Dog made him do it. He said, "Sandy, Wha don chew muve yore fat butt into that offiss and get those potentially damagin' memos fer me? Jes fer ole tahm's sake, an' all. 'kay?" :)

[displacedtexan]

13. It makes no sense for Clinton to want to destroy COPIES of docs.

Your logic escapes me, demoman.

Can you explain how stealing COPIES of docs would help President Clinton?

Or was your post meant to be humorous?

I'm still on my first cup of coffee.

[Frodo]

25. Neither interpretation makes sense.

The story seems to be that he took 4-6 copies of the SAME document over at least two seperate occasions.

It's hard to believe (as you say) that he would do that intentionally if there are other copies of the same work. This assumes they were all "copies" as in "photocopies" of an original. If they were "copies" as in "the original memo had a copy sent to each of five officials" and perhaps there are different marginal notes on each copy - THAT would be significant. I'm not sure we know which it is.

On the other had... it's equally hard to believe (bordering impossible) that he would just "happen" to "accidentally" take five copies of the same document. It sure makes it look like he didn't want someone to see it. But since we haven't SEEN the memo in question, we don't (and may never) know.


One thing that can not be argues, however, is the odd timing of the release. One side or the other did it for political reasons.

[hang a left]

29. Not arguing that point. Obviously they have known for a while

and have been sitting on it waiting for the perfect time to use the incident as a distraction. Nonetheless, there are some questions I have respecting the removal of the copies. Your notes in the margins makes sense. But, who made the notes? Something just doesn't sit right with me.

[Frodo]

34. Don't discount the possibility that it might have been Kerry

Both sides have leaked things they KNOW will later come out so that they can 1)control the timing and b) blame the other side for the leak.

If Bush had done this with the DUI story before the LAST convention, Florida would not have mattered.

This doesn't let the Republicans off the hook. If they WEREN'T the ones releasing it, they were saving it for the week before the election. If it was non-partisan I suspect the story would have been out some time ago.

[demoman123]

35. You called it in your post: 'marginal notes'

'On December 4, 1999, the National Security Council’s counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, sent Mr. Berger a memo suggesting a strike in the last week of 1999 against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Reports the commission: “In the margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, ‘no.’ ”'


http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getmailfiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2004/07/23&ID=Ar01000

[Frodo]

37. Different document.

We already knew that the Clinton administration chose not to attack Al Qaeda on a couple occasions. So there's a document showing that Berger was part of the decision making? So waht?

If the National Security Adviser wasn't involved in such decisions it would be a scandal, not the other way around.

This is not 9/11 level stuff. We can't simultaneously expect Bush to NOT attack Iraw (with absolute terrorism ties) and yet think Clinton screwed up by not attacking Afganistan before 9/11.

But yeah, that's the kinds of thing I'm sure he wouldn't like people to see.

[Demoiselle]

42. You DO know, don'tcha, that the docs in question said good things...

..description of how Berger and his team SUCCESSFULLY FOILED millenium terror plots. COPIES OF GOOD STUFF about the Clinton admin. No reason to hide them, no way to get them all, either. He studied them carefully to prepare for his testimony with the commission. He took notes and didn't show the notes to the archive guards (a no no, against archive policy, but certainly within the realm of simple forgetfulness) and says he inadvertently picked up the docs themselves with pile of other papers. ALSO, Senator John Kerry has clearance to access all of these documents, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I don't think this story has much shelf life left.

[Frodo]

43. Can you provide a link?

AFIK - No copy of the document has been made public.

And Kerry is not on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Has not been, I think, for about a decade.

[lancdem]

45. But they don't implicate Clinton

Everything the 9/11 Commission wanted from the Clinton admin. they received.

[blm]

48. Absurd. Pilfer document COPIES about the GREAT work they did in 2000

to make sure they AREN'T seen. How dumb would someone have to be to believe anyone would want their GOOD work covered up, especially when it's just a copy of the document?

Dumb, dumb, dumb fools who are pushing that load of crap.

[Frodo]

26. I answered in post #25 below... but I just wanted to say...

Go PADRES!

It's like the third or fourth year (in my LIFE) I've been able to say that without hiding my face in a paper bag.

:hi:

[hang a left]

30. We could actually come home from LA on Sunday

in first place. We kicked the Giants' butts two days in a row with them having their home-field advantage.


Now the Chargers.....there is a reason for the paper bag.

on edit: bakatcha :hi:

[Frodo]

32. Those are tough pitchnig matchups

over the next three games.


But hey! They just beat the guy who had won 12 straight (the Padres were also his PREVIOUS loss).

Two out of three would be good enough for me.

Enjoy!

[struggle4progress]

50. Maybe he was rushing through thousands of pages of docs ...

... and just mixed up some of the copies with the notes he was taking? Sloppy ... but old work habits are hard to break?

[msmolybdenum]

24. "Well so would I..."

Those seem sensible questions to me. What do you think you know; or know you think? Thanx

[John_H]

39. How obvious can it be?

He wanted to make sure the commission got the documents that showed clinton's success in thwarting the milenium plots. He knew full weel that Chimp would have suppressed, if not destroyed, those documents.

[Nile]

11. Who cares, who leaked what when.

Thee big problem is why was Berger stupid enough to do what he did in the first place. Yea, sure, it would have been great if he got away with it but he did not.

[shraby]

14. David Jergen said on

t.v. that it's a very easy thing to do if you are looking at hundreds of pages of stuff to accidentally mix them up with some of your stuff. Many officials have done it. There is a monitor there watching you at all times. If the monitor noticed he had mixed some up, the monitor's duty would be to call attention to it at the time.

[bleedingheart]

17. that was exactly what I told a coworker...

I have done it at work...walked off with someone's paper I was reviewing and we have all probably walked off with someone's pen...

The problem I have is that this Berger thing has been common knowledge for those in the "know" since last October and now it is leaked????

[Baltimoreboy]

19. Great if he got away with it?

I don't understand.

[hang a left]

31. Probably "just because he from a dem administration."

WE should all demand the same behavior from current and former government officials regardless of their political affiliations...period. That is what has gotten us in this mess in the first place.

[Democat]

15. The Republicans are great at bringing issues together - Clarke/Berger

Why doesn't our side have the vicious effective propaganda strategy they have?

The first thing out of every Democrat's mouth should have been to link this leak to the Plame leak. Tie Bush to a pattern of politically motivated security leaks.

I'm impressed that Dems have been as good as they have at turning it around, but we just don't seem to be as good at sticking to effective talking points as the Republicans are. Every Democrat needs to be on the same page and repeating the same thing until every American hears it.

[thecrow]

18. Why doesn't our side have the vicious effective propaganda strategy ?

Because our side is good.
Their side is EVIL.
Go in peace, my son.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

20. Why doesn't our side have the vicious effective propaganda strategy they h

Because Democrats are a bunch of Pussy-footed Alan Colmes like characatures that think that we should all just get along. This is war and we must do whatever it takes to win. We need our own propagnda machine.

[hang a left]

33. They are enablers.

That is the only conclusion that makes any sense to me.

[flewellyn]

38. Heed the words of Nietzche...

"Battle not with monsters lest ye become one; for when you look into the Abyss, the Abyss looks into you."

We must fight them without becoming them.

[VLC98]

16. I would like to know why Berger either didn't

tell Kerry he was being investigated or, if he did, why Kerry didn't distance himself from him months ago? Regardless of guilt, Berger should've given Kerry the opportunity to avoid the bad publicity.

[sadiesworld]

21. Kerry most certainly knew.

He didn't let Berger go b/c it is BS. If anything, he underestimated exactly how whorish the media has become.

[Shrek]

22. Kerry says he didn't know until this week

From the Boston Globe:

Kerry also disclosed yesterday that he had not known until this week that Berger was the subject of a criminal probe over his removal of classified materials dealing with counterterrorism from the National Archives.

"I didn't have a clue, not a clue," Kerry told NBC's Tom Brokaw in an interview last night. Asked whether Berger had told Kerry about the criminal inquiry, the senator repeated, "I didn't have a clue."

Is he lying?

[sadiesworld]

23. Wow.

Actually, I don't know what to think. :shrug:

Why didn't Berger tell him? Clinton said he's known about it for some time. :tinfoilhat:

Thanks for straightening me out. :)

[Frodo]

27. It's a hot question

Berger certainly knew he was under a possible criminal investigation.

And he certainly knew that it was specifically related to the area Kerry had asked him to assist the campaign on (Kerry is certainly perceived to be quite weak on foreign policy experience).

How could he be so naive as to think this would not come out? And at the worst time?

[sadiesworld]

40. Like clockwork.

:eyes:

[Frodo]

41. You asked a question I agreed with you -Oh, and I owe you a link.

YOU said "what was he thinking" (or "WHY didn't he tell him"). I agreed. Perhaps you're overly sensitive? :-)


From a couple days ago (I couldn't find the thread when I got back to searching).

You stated that the Washington Post had backed off of a story that Wilson's own report had some possible attempts on Iraq's part to buy Uranium. That they had corrected it to Iran. When I disagreed, you asked for a link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html


Here's the story with the correction. The report (and the Senate finding of such) was taken by the "intelligence" (I'm going to put that in quotes from now on - lol) community took his report as SUPPORT for the idea Iraq was seeking Uranium from Niger. ONE incident with Iran was misread (and corrected). The report detailed ANOTHER attempt a couple years later that WAS Iraq (and the contacting individual is named in Wilson's report). Wilson records the communication AND the the Nigerian official believed it to be an attempt to buy Uranium.

So no, it was not the "Iranis".

I found about a dozen other sources, but almost all were RW editorialist's repeating the same information.

[lancdem]

47. Actually, the worst time would be in late October

[Frodo]

49. I know.

Though depending on what it says, it MAY be more effective now.

My point is that he should have realized it would be used at the most inconvenient time. If the Republicans leaked it and it would have been more "useful" in October, then they screwed up a bit.

It's still possible (and I heard Lanny Davis say it on the radio today) that it was a Democrat who leaked it to defuse it as an issue for November.

[lancdem]

46. But if Kerry did know beforehand

he wouldn't exactly be able to admit it. However, it's quite possible he didn't. Clinton also said the investigation was routine, FWIW.

[yellowcanine]

28. I predict this "inquiry" will die a quiet death. Seems that some pubs

have once again overreached in their eagerness to expose a Democratic "scandal."

[flewellyn]

36. So apparently the phrase is not...

"What did Kerry know and when did he know it?" That, no doubt, is what they were hoping for.

No, the phrase is now "What did Karl Rove know and when did he know it?"

I love the smell of backfiring spin in the morning.

[MallRat]

44. Amazing: the LEAK is actually becoming bigger than the story itself.

back·fire

intransitive verb (past back·fired, past participle back·fired, present participle back·fir·ing, 3rd person present singular back·fires)

1. have opposite effect: to have an effect opposite to the one intended
"The policy of mandatory testing may well backfire and do more harm than good."

2. (automotive) make explosion in exhaust pipe: to produce an explosion of prematurely ignited fuel in an internal-combustion engine or of unburned exhaust gases in the exhaust pipe