Jump to content

Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger Admits Taking Top Secret Documents


Recommended Posts

Apparently, this incident happened prior to the 9/11 Commission hearings, but is just being exposed now. Whatever the motive for the leak, the incident itself is damning.

Here's just one AP story on the topic. There are many. Clinton Adviser Probed Over Terror Memos

Excerpts:

quote:

WASHINGTON - Sandy Berger, former President Clinton (news - web sites)'s national security adviser, is under criminal investigation by the Justice Department (news - web sites) after highly classified terrorism documents disappeared while he was reviewing what should be turned over to the Sept. 11 commission.

Berger's home and office were searched earlier this year by FBI (news - web sites) agents armed with warrants after the former Clinton adviser voluntarily returned some sensitive documents to the National Archives and admitted he also removed handwritten notes he had made while reviewing the sensitive documents.

However, some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of al-Qaida terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing, officials and lawyers told The Associated Press.

Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket and pants, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio

...

The FBI searches of Berger's home and office occurred after National Archives employees told agents they believed they witnessed Berger place documents in his clothing while reviewing sensitive Clinton administration papers and that some documents were then noticed missing, officials said.

When asked, Berger said he returned some classified documents that he found in his office and all of the handwritten notes he had taken from the secure room,
but could not locate two or three copies of the highly classified millennium terror report
.

The last reference to the millenium terror report is interesting. Here is what conservative pundit and constitutional lawyer Mark Levin reported on the millenium terror report at the time of Attorney General John Ashcroft's testimony before the 9/11 commission: Millennial Mistake

Excerpt:

quote:

In March 2000, the review warns the prior Administration of a substantial al Qaeda network and affiliated foreign terrorist presence within the U.S., capable of supporting additional terrorist attacks here.

Furthermore, fully seventeen months before the September 11 attacks, the review recommends disrupting the al Qaeda network and terrorist presence here using immigration violations, minor criminal infractions, and tougher visa and border controls.

...

Despite the warnings and the clear vulnerabilities identified by the NSC in 2000, no new disruption strategy to attack the al Qaeda network within the United States was deployed. It was ignored in the Department's five-year counterterrorism strategy.

I did not see the highly-classified review before September 11. It was not among the 30 items upon which my predecessor briefed me during the transition.
It was not advocated as a disruption strategy to me during the summer threat period by the NSC staff which wrote the review more than a year earlier.

So, what we have here is the former National Security Advisor stuffing down his pants the report that shows the Clinton Administration being warned that Al Qaeda was in the United States, testimony that none of the measures in the report were followed, and that, contrary to Bill Clinton's own testimony, that this was NOT turned over to the incoming Bush administration in 2001.

Why would the former National Security Advisor, and current policy advisor to John Kerry, remove top secret documents from a secure reading room at the National Archives before the 9/11 Commission can review them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, this incident happened prior to the 9/11 Commission hearings, but is just being exposed now. Whatever the motive for the leak, the incident itself is damning.

Here's just one AP story on the topic. There are many. Clinton Adviser Probed Over Terror Memos

Excerpts:

quote:

WASHINGTON - Sandy Berger, former President Clinton (news - web sites)'s national security adviser, is under criminal investigation by the Justice Department (news - web sites) after highly classified terrorism documents disappeared while he was reviewing what should be turned over to the Sept. 11 commission.

Berger's home and office were searched earlier this year by FBI (news - web sites) agents armed with warrants after the former Clinton adviser voluntarily returned some sensitive documents to the National Archives and admitted he also removed handwritten notes he had made while reviewing the sensitive documents.

However, some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of al-Qaida terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing, officials and lawyers told The Associated Press.

Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket and pants, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio

...

The FBI searches of Berger's home and office occurred after National Archives employees told agents they believed they witnessed Berger place documents in his clothing while reviewing sensitive Clinton administration papers and that some documents were then noticed missing, officials said.

When asked, Berger said he returned some classified documents that he found in his office and all of the handwritten notes he had taken from the secure room,
but could not locate two or three copies of the highly classified millennium terror report
.

The last reference to the millenium terror report is interesting. Here is what conservative pundit and constitutional lawyer Mark Levin reported on the millenium terror report at the time of Attorney General John Ashcroft's testimony before the 9/11 commission: Millennial Mistake

Excerpt:

quote:

In March 2000, the review warns the prior Administration of a substantial al Qaeda network and affiliated foreign terrorist presence within the U.S., capable of supporting additional terrorist attacks here.

Furthermore, fully seventeen months before the September 11 attacks, the review recommends disrupting the al Qaeda network and terrorist presence here using immigration violations, minor criminal infractions, and tougher visa and border controls.

...

Despite the warnings and the clear vulnerabilities identified by the NSC in 2000, no new disruption strategy to attack the al Qaeda network within the United States was deployed. It was ignored in the Department's five-year counterterrorism strategy.

I did not see the highly-classified review before September 11. It was not among the 30 items upon which my predecessor briefed me during the transition.
It was not advocated as a disruption strategy to me during the summer threat period by the NSC staff which wrote the review more than a year earlier.

So, what we have here is the former National Security Advisor stuffing down his pants the report that shows the Clinton Administration being warned that Al Qaeda was in the United States, testimony that none of the measures in the report were followed, and that, contrary to Bill Clinton's own testimony, that this was NOT turned over to the incoming Bush administration in 2001.

Why would the former National Security Advisor, and current policy advisor to John Kerry, remove top secret documents from a secure reading room at the National Archives before the 9/11 Commission can review them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CYA, gotta keep that Clinton "Legacy" intact....

The only legacy he has is lying under oath, and a stained blue dress, and being impeached by the house.

Sounds like quite the legacy to me....LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CYA, gotta keep that Clinton "Legacy" intact....

The only legacy he has is lying under oath, and a stained blue dress, and being impeached by the house.

Sounds like quite the legacy to me....LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he actually did this... (let's face it gentlemen the only place he hasn't shoved these documents given the changing stories, is up his derrier)... he should be prosecuted. I guess Sandy is just very sloppy, ofcourse they don't have appointees at the FAA to destory the tapes of 9/11 or for that matter people in the Defense Department to destroy microfiche of the President's guard service either. I can't wait until January 2005 when the facts start coming out about just how badly we've been lied to and screwed over the past 4 years. Afterall disclosure is not exactly this Administration's strong suit either.

*Snickers*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he actually did this... (let's face it gentlemen the only place he hasn't shoved these documents given the changing stories, is up his derrier)... he should be prosecuted. I guess Sandy is just very sloppy, ofcourse they don't have appointees at the FAA to destory the tapes of 9/11 or for that matter people in the Defense Department to destroy microfiche of the President's guard service either. I can't wait until January 2005 when the facts start coming out about just how badly we've been lied to and screwed over the past 4 years. Afterall disclosure is not exactly this Administration's strong suit either.

*Snickers*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The media is not sure how to cover this yet. Berger has admitted to taking the documents, so the media is reporting no ill intent. They can't exactly claim that he didn't know the rules, since he was the top secrets advisor to the president. Also, he is reported to have taken documents on five separate occasions, which makes it hard to call it inadvertant.

All the inside-the-Beltway pundits seem to be in a circle-the-wagons mode right now, protecting one of their own (Republicans and Democrats). We'll see if the shock wears off and they start asking tough questions like, what was in the documents that were taken, who saw the documents, did they have the proper security clearance for those documents.

The timing of the theft of the documents is interesting. They were just before Berger's appearance with Clinton and Lindsey at the 9/11 Commission meeting. Also, Kerry's policy paper on his port security plan appeared shortly after the papers were removed from the archives. The Kerry campaign took down that policy press release from their website today, asked Google and other sites to purge their archives, and dumped Berger. On-line copies still exist, though, for people who want to see it.

The Democrats are trying to spin this as suspicious timing of the leak, not why were the documents illegally taken and what was in them. Republicans are asking if Kerry had any knowledge of the documents, and why would someone with the reputation of Berger risk it all for something like this.

As for suspicious timing, it would make more sense for Republicans to have waited until after Kerry is nominated next week before leaking this, not now. On the other hand, perhaps there is a Democrat who might benefit from this news rocking the Kerry camp just before the convention? Who's to say? I doubt that any news will break implicating John Kerry in the use of stolen top secret documents for his partisan political campaign. If that were to happen, that would mean that he'd have to step down and drop out of the campaign, allowing someone else to take the nomination at the convention next week.

The next few days will be interesting. The media haven't figured out yet how to cover this in a way that 1) doesn't hurt Kerry, 2) doesn't hurt Berger, 3) doesn't hurt Clinton, 4) doesn't hurt Democrats, 5) doesn't help Bush, and 6) doesn't hurt their own claim of being an objective news organ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The media is not sure how to cover this yet. Berger has admitted to taking the documents, so the media is reporting no ill intent. They can't exactly claim that he didn't know the rules, since he was the top secrets advisor to the president. Also, he is reported to have taken documents on five separate occasions, which makes it hard to call it inadvertant.

All the inside-the-Beltway pundits seem to be in a circle-the-wagons mode right now, protecting one of their own (Republicans and Democrats). We'll see if the shock wears off and they start asking tough questions like, what was in the documents that were taken, who saw the documents, did they have the proper security clearance for those documents.

The timing of the theft of the documents is interesting. They were just before Berger's appearance with Clinton and Lindsey at the 9/11 Commission meeting. Also, Kerry's policy paper on his port security plan appeared shortly after the papers were removed from the archives. The Kerry campaign took down that policy press release from their website today, asked Google and other sites to purge their archives, and dumped Berger. On-line copies still exist, though, for people who want to see it.

The Democrats are trying to spin this as suspicious timing of the leak, not why were the documents illegally taken and what was in them. Republicans are asking if Kerry had any knowledge of the documents, and why would someone with the reputation of Berger risk it all for something like this.

As for suspicious timing, it would make more sense for Republicans to have waited until after Kerry is nominated next week before leaking this, not now. On the other hand, perhaps there is a Democrat who might benefit from this news rocking the Kerry camp just before the convention? Who's to say? I doubt that any news will break implicating John Kerry in the use of stolen top secret documents for his partisan political campaign. If that were to happen, that would mean that he'd have to step down and drop out of the campaign, allowing someone else to take the nomination at the convention next week.

The next few days will be interesting. The media haven't figured out yet how to cover this in a way that 1) doesn't hurt Kerry, 2) doesn't hurt Berger, 3) doesn't hurt Clinton, 4) doesn't hurt Democrats, 5) doesn't help Bush, and 6) doesn't hurt their own claim of being an objective news organ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was watching Cspan this morning (the political talk show part before sessions begin) and he was suppose to be taking callers about the conventions and what they mean for you. But he was getting all manner of calls. One in particular was a call about media bias. The washington times and post both buried the news about Mr. Berger in the newspaper. The caller mentioned that if this was anything about Bush it would have been smeared all over the front page.

Anyway here's CBS news's take on the item.

FBI Probes Clinton Aide Berger

Mr. Berger's take: "I deeply regret the sloppiness involved, 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," Berger said in a statement to the AP."

And this man is a what? "Former national security adviser and has been informally advising Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry."

When asked, Berger said he returned some classified documents that he found in his office and all of the handwritten notes he had taken from the secure room, but could not locate two or three copies of the highly classified millennium terror report.

And there's this:

"When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded," he said."

How convenient. Now what's more interesting is the Democrats response about this whole thing Which was on the broadcast of this on CBS but not in the writen article I gave the link for about the suspicious timing of this and hinting the Rebulicans had something to do with it. Funny that, why shouldn't the people know about this? The Democrats want Bush to reveal everything he knows but god forbid someone does that to a Democrat it's like you are taking a stab at the very heart of American. What's worse is that this investigation has been going on for months and not even "the man of the people" Kerry said a word about it. So much for someone different.

Now I'm just going to sit and watch the responses from our in house liberals worming out of this one. But I already know that they will only continue to attack Bush even in this thread and not focus on the Mr. Berger issue.

Here's my response to the first one:

quote:

Original post by Takvah

If he actually did this... (let's face it gentlemen the only place he hasn't shoved these documents given the changing stories, is up his derrier)...

Ah, the first post from a resident liberal in denial.

Hello!! Anyone home in there. What do you mean "IF". He admited to it! What changing stories? I've seen them all and all of them state the same way he took them.

[ 07-20-2004, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: LostInSpace ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was watching Cspan this morning (the political talk show part before sessions begin) and he was suppose to be taking callers about the conventions and what they mean for you. But he was getting all manner of calls. One in particular was a call about media bias. The washington times and post both buried the news about Mr. Berger in the newspaper. The caller mentioned that if this was anything about Bush it would have been smeared all over the front page.

Anyway here's CBS news's take on the item.

FBI Probes Clinton Aide Berger

Mr. Berger's take: "I deeply regret the sloppiness involved, 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," Berger said in a statement to the AP."

And this man is a what? "Former national security adviser and has been informally advising Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry."

When asked, Berger said he returned some classified documents that he found in his office and all of the handwritten notes he had taken from the secure room, but could not locate two or three copies of the highly classified millennium terror report.

And there's this:

"When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded," he said."

How convenient. Now what's more interesting is the Democrats response about this whole thing Which was on the broadcast of this on CBS but not in the writen article I gave the link for about the suspicious timing of this and hinting the Rebulicans had something to do with it. Funny that, why shouldn't the people know about this? The Democrats want Bush to reveal everything he knows but god forbid someone does that to a Democrat it's like you are taking a stab at the very heart of American. What's worse is that this investigation has been going on for months and not even "the man of the people" Kerry said a word about it. So much for someone different.

Now I'm just going to sit and watch the responses from our in house liberals worming out of this one. But I already know that they will only continue to attack Bush even in this thread and not focus on the Mr. Berger issue.

Here's my response to the first one:

quote:

Original post by Takvah

If he actually did this... (let's face it gentlemen the only place he hasn't shoved these documents given the changing stories, is up his derrier)...

Ah, the first post from a resident liberal in denial.

Hello!! Anyone home in there. What do you mean "IF". He admited to it! What changing stories? I've seen them all and all of them state the same way he took them.

[ 07-20-2004, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: LostInSpace ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...