Ew. Yuck. Drudge. I feel dirty. Interesting. I'd like to know more. But it doesn't sound like he did anything differently than the Bush folks. Looks like an equal-opportunity ball-dropping to me.
And, now, we have our motive. Reports the 9-11 Commission: 'In the margin next to [Richard] Clarke's suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, 'no''...
Can a case for treason be made against Berger, in addition to theft of classified documentation? IntheNet
That article takes "Blame Clinton" to a whole new level. Exactly what kind of rag is The New York Sun? I don't recall ever seeing it on newsstands.
Gee Mike... I see you're upset at discovering that the Liberal and Leftist ideas of the "LA Times" and the "NY Times" are not pervasive to all periodicals! Too bad! IntheNet
If he stole the document, then how is it that we know about the margin notes? There were multiple copies of every document he walked out with and he knew it. His motive, if there was one, was because he wanted to read and study the crap from home. I can't think of anything more evil than that.
I'm glad you asked, here it is http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1400050308/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-5472323-3680745#reader-link Any more questions, don't hesitate to ask.
So, instead of stealing the document that embarrasses him, he steals a different one. Don't tell me you didn't read your own link, there, iMac. The "no" in the margin wasn't the one he is alleged to have stolen...I mean, OBVIOUSLY. Is now a good time to ask what Bush did against Bin Laden between 1/01 and 9/01? I mean, at least Clinton did something.
Nice discussion. I wonder what these very same people would be saying if Berger was a member of the Bush administration.
I'd be saying, "If only we had someone savvy and competent like Condi Rice protecting the country." The more time goes by without Berger being charged with so much as littering, the more I'm convinced it was right-wing spin. Which is hugely ironic, because it's not as if Berger nixing AQ attacks doesn't look bad enough, without making up crap about him stealing classified documents. Charge him with something, then get back to me.
Agreed. The sad fact is that everyone in both the Clinton and Bush administrations fell asleep on the job.
And then there was this yesterday, keep in mind Slade Gorton was one of the most conservative members of the Senate in his time: DOBBS: Let me ask you, not necessarily directly on point, but certainly related. Sandy Berger, the former head of the national security -- national security adviser under the Clinton administration, accused of, and admitting taking classified documents from the National Archives, those notes, whether copies or originals still unclear. Did the commission review that material, to what -- can you shed any light on what happened there? Slade Gorton, first. GORTON: Well, we can't shed any light on exactly what happened there and on Sandy Berger's troubles with the Justice Department and the Archives. What we can say unequivocally is we had all of that information. We have every one of those documents. All of them have -- are infused in and are a part of our report. DOBBS: So the commission was denied no information as a result of whatever Sandy Berger did or did not do at the National Archives? GORTON: That's precisely correct. GORELICK: And we have been so assured by the Justice Department. Dobbs, Gorton & Gorelick Lou Dobbs Tonight July 22nd 2004 So Ian will you and all the other Wingnuts PLEASE shut up now about this or at least go find another non-story that requires copious amounts of fluffing to even reach semi-newsworthy status.
OOOH, careful what you wish for! I suggest everyone read and contrast Chapters 6 and 8, if they want to know which NSA did what against AQ. Or, to save time, you could read Ian's posts, and assume the opposite is true.