Can someone explain what this Berger thing is all about?

[sandboxface]

So he took some documents from the National Archives. I heard they were copies, not the originals. What's the deal here? Was he a proto-neocon like people are saying on another http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2050610&mesg_id=2050610">thread?

I've been in the dark with this issue...

[Langis]

1. You hit the nail right on the head

What you said is about what everyone else knows, now add republican fake outrage and we are all set.

[DBoon]

2. The documents were classified

So at worst they should pull his clearance. End of story. BFD.

[kohodog]

3. The Republican Noise Machine

Winding up to a fever pitch. A non story (and a re-run) to deflect attention from:

a) The 911 Report
b) The Plame outing
C) The Democratic Convention
d) All of the above







(correct answer is d)

[ClassWarrior]

4. Exactly.

n/t

[DemDemDemko]

5. You are right

BTW, The 911 Report is full of crap.

[KharmaTrain]

6. Bottom Lines...

1.) Whatever Berger took had no effect on the 9/11 Commission releasing it's report and members said it had no effect whatsoever. (Remember this one, we may have to refer back to it again).

2.) The papers Berger "took" were copies of reports he had written after the millenium plots and were thouroughly vetted by both the committee and verified by Richard Clarke in his book and testimony. He was refreshing himself on the details...nearly 4 years after he wrote those reports for his testimony before that committee.

3.) This "crime" occured last October...it's not like he was caught doing this last week. (See #1 now)...

4.) Berger has and is a big target of the Neo-Cons who saw him as enemy #1 in the Clinton days. They see him and Holbrooke crafting Kerry's international policies and it scares the shit out of them...thus they need to slur and slander him in any manner possible. Sadly Berger gave them the opening.

5.) This non-story was used to dull the impact of the tone of the commission's report that was highly critical of this regime's actions in the days prior to and since 9/11. It also mutes the possible perjury of member of its own as the media's focus has been diverted.

6.) Next week this story will be rear-view window material along the litered roadway that is this nasty campaign. Another target will be found...someone will say something that will raise these dog's hairs and a new target and life will be picked to be destroyed.

Hope this shed's a little light...

[sandboxface]

8. Thanks!

My mother (who gets her information from the news) made this story sound very bad for the Democrats, like Berger was trying to steal the documents. I'm going to find out exactly where she got her information. Probably FAUX.

[baldguy]

7. Everything the Republicans and their echo machine say is a lie.

Berger stuffed documents in his socks. LIE.
He hid them in his briefcase. LIE.
He was trying to hide more incriminating evidence from the Clinton admin. LIE.
The security people at the Archives were suspicious of him, and kept him under surveillance. LIE.

What he admitted is the truth. He took notes while he was studying the documents (which he was allowed to do), and didn't get them checked when he left (which is what he was supposed to do), period.

This whole brouhaha was cobbled together to deflect attention away from the 9/11 Commission Report.