About the Sandy Berger

[shraby]

story...I have a question concerning looking at classified documents. If the Senators, or the members of the 9/11 Commission, or anyone who is allowed to read classified documents can make notes but not take them out of the room with them, how in the world can they remember enough of what they read (sometimes hundreds of pages) to accurately write a summation of it for reports like the 9/11 or CIA reports? Unless one has a photographic memory, the reports have got to be less than accurate.

[fearnobush]

1. Exactly - it's supposed to be a security thing. I hope sandy

still has the docs and is waiting to expose them for the truth.

[shraby]

2. Looks like he has

there were some he couldn't find. Otherwise the whole story doesn't make sense does it?

[hang a left]

3. It appears that it is not real clear yet...

just noticed this late story off the AP wire that Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor, is the focus, in the AP's words, "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."

"I deeply regret the sloppiness involved," the article quotes Berger telling the AP, "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."

It's worth reading the whole article to get all the details, limited as they are.

The whole thing seems almost inexplicable. If I understand the article correctly, Berger took with him out of the secure reading room several highly classified documents relating to the 1999 millenium terrorist threats, as well as handwritten notes he took while reviewing those and other documents.



snip>



http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

[shockingelk]

4. my take

I believe that even when people are allowed to take notes, the notes have to be examined before taking them out - ie, there's no documents shuffled in among notes.

I see few possibilities here:

a. Berger was stupidly careless and needs to get his act together
b. Berger was trying to pull a fast one of some sort
c. It's part of a scheme to force the declassification of something

[grasswire]

5. remember Paul O'Neill?

Remember that as soon as he crossed Bushco, he was attacked by claims that he had taken secret documents?

I believe Berger is the subject of an attack undertaken to deflect attention from the administration. It doesn't matter what the truth is -- the public will only remember the headlines: Clinton Official Under Investigation for Stealing Terror Documents.

[KharmaTrain]

6. Look Close...This Is Diversion...So Is Iran

The gist of the 9/11 report will be highly critical of this regime; how they knew and didn't protect Americans in the run-up to 9/11 and haven't done squat since except fear monger...and here's more of the same.

Note how the Iran "transit" all of a sudden came out. It's almost 3 years since the attack and somehow this bit of information seems to have been insignificant in the past...or is it? Is this to counter the fact most the killers were from Bushi Arabia? Of course, and to create another boogie man who can be used as a whipping boy for the remainder of the election.

Yep, it wasn't Iraq that was bad...don't get me wrong, they were bad...but now Iran is the REAL threat...yep and we gotta go get 'em. Truth is we don't have the military nor national will to do that right now, but sabre rattling is what this regime needs...go from the defense to the offense.

Berger's flap is another diversion technique. Make it look like he somehow sabotaged the commission (haven't these assholes done enough on the credibility of EVERY Democrat involved in these hearings?) or put a dark partisan color on the report's release.

Again, this is a regime that denies responsibility and relishes when it can stick someone else...especially a Democrat.