Posted on 07/20/2004 1:46:33 PM PDT by bikepacker67
WASHINGTON, July 20 — The political fallout continued today over revelations that President Clinton's national security advisor, Samuel R. Berger, removed classified national security documents from the National Archives while vetting them in preparation for testimony before the Sept. 11 commission.
Mr. Berger inadvertently removed at least two slightly different versions of a memo critiquing how the government handled national intelligence and security issues before the millennium celebration in December 1999, as well as personal notes he had taken on classified documents, one of Mr. Berger's lawyers, Lanny Breuer, said Monday night.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I guess that's another one of those semantic thingies - like what IS means.
They don't even bother to say something like "Mr. Berger claims". Instead they state, as if proven fact, that they were accidentally removed. What a bunch of BS!
Ha! That was the lead sentence in the earlier article! At least they have moved it to the second paragraph now, and also acknowledged that the "fallout is growing."
Mr. Berger inadvertently removed at least two slightly different versions of a memo critiquing how the government handled national intelligence and security issues before the millennium celebration in December 1999, as well as personal notes he had taken on classified documents, one of Mr. Berger's lawyers, Lanny Breuer, said Monday night.
Now, let's write it more honestly:
According to a statement released Monday night by Lanny Breuer, one of Berger's lawyers, Mr. Berger inadvertently removed at least two slightly different versions of a memo critiquing how the government handled national intelligence and security issues before the millennium celebration in December 1999, as well as personal notes he had taken on classified documents.
The first makes "inadvertent" seem like a factual news item - you don't get that it is a claim from an attorney until the end. The second way makes it clear that this is a statement from the lawyer.
A more appropriate title would be "Enough People Now Know About This, So We Have To Report It As Well"
INADVERTANTLY=In his socks. You can look it up. #;^)
whoops. I missed the end of that long sentence where it says, "..Lanny Breuer, said Monday night."
NYT conclusion: Happens all the time. Fuggedaboudit.
The fallout continues "today?" I just heard about this for the first time at 10pm last night.
Exactly the intended result.
INADVERTANTLY shoved into his socks. Nixon is laughing his dead *** off.
No doubt that he broke the law, but don't worry, this will all be soon swept under the rug.
Well it is like when I inadvertantly RUN a stop light at 85 miles per hour...
Honestly! I thought the papers I was stuffing down my briefs were blank. I just wanted to impress the clerk as I walked by her! Unfortunately, she saw me stuffing the papers ...
Yeah ... inadvertently stuffed classified documents down my trousers, in my socks, under my jacket, and into my leather portfolio. Documents, as former security chief for the Clintonistas, I knew full well to be both sensitive and classified ... documents found in a secure reading room that was established expressly for the purpose of allowing only 9-11 commission personal access to research, but explicitly not remove, said documentation. Inadvertent my ass!
What did John Kerry know and when did he know it?
Kerry just smelt the fart in church and is trying to distance himself from Berg/er. Can't let that happen. The Klinton slime is everywhere. I think I need a shower.
peace...D
Did whoever is in charge of the Library of Congress just let him take what he wanted without making a record of it and seeing that it was returned? Sounds like someone wasnt doing their job.
good translation!
The New York Times: (212) 556-7652
The New York Post: (212) 930-8000
ABC: 212-456-7777
CBS: 212-975-4321
NBC: 212-664-4444
CNN: 404-237-0234
Fox:1-888-369-4762
NY York Daily News (212) 210-NEWS
Bill O'Reily
E-mail: oreilly@foxnews.com
Sean Hannity
hannity@foxnews.com
Alan Colmes
colmes@foxnews.com
Phylis Schlafly
eagle@eagleforum.org
Oliver North
http://www.northamerican.com/-cybercall/pg-call.htm
Janet Parshall, conservative talk show host
(703) 276-8597
Fax: (703) 516-7212
E-Mail us at: info@jpamerica.com
Brit Hume
Special Report with Brit Hume
Special@foxnews.com
Hugh Hewitt (conservative talk show host/columnist)
http://www.hughhewitt.com/
Michael Medved (conservative talk show host/columnist)
http://www.michaelmedved.com/contact.shtml
I got these addresses from Media Research Center,
http://www.mediaresearch.org/MediaAddresses/mediaaddresses.asp#If%20the
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
e-mail: conedit@ajc.com
Houston Chronicle
e-mail: viewpoints@chron.com
Miami Herald
e-mail: HeraldEd@herald.com
The New York Times
letters@nytimes.com
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
e-mail: letters@post-gazette.com
USA Today
e-mail: editor@usatoday.com
The Wall Street Journal
e-mail: letter.editor@edit.wsj.com
The Washington Post
e-mail: Letterstoed@washpost.com
The Washington Times
e-mail: wtnews@wt.infi.net
Top-of-the-hour (5 PM) news on the radio (I was listening to Hannity).
...............Dan Rather opens with his top story about the soon to be released Report and some changes some of the members wish to make as last minute corrections. Blah, blah ,blah. He then went onto other stories.
NO MENTION OF SANDY BURGLER!
Yeah! I don't know how they wound up in his socks, of all places. Is that where we are supposed to carry all our important papers?
If any of you wish to puke, just watch CNN spin this... Lanny is doing the disco duck.
Exactly! This is what is so SOOO frustrating- the public needs to know not only that Mr. Berger played fast and loose with the laws of national security- but WHO in their right mind in the National Archives waited til the 2nd or 3rd time to inform the authorities of documents being removed...in such a sneaky way.
I'm furious with the way this article was written- calling the NYT right now to sound off...
Next thing you know, the New York Times will maintain that he "inadvertently" stuffed an office chair up his huge rear end.
Inadvertant? Discovered them and then waited for a week to return them? Made notes of national security documents and took them with him?
Who did he share them with? If anyone else got a copy or heads up from his 'notes', he broke the national security laws of this country.
Notes? I don got to show you my stinking notes!
Any group (the Rats and the mainstream media employees) that can accept Joshua Steiner's "I lied to my diary" to explain the incriminating evidence in his diary -- a document that was in the hands of the Senate committee investigating the Clinton pukes' shenanigans at the RTC -- will have no trouble cutting the legs off this story. You cannot shame mainstream media employees but you can sure laugh at them.
The pig liberal media spins everything for the good of the party.
That's what I like about Free Republic. A forum filled with educated people who can recognize how language can be used to present a reality that conforms to your views without actually lying. I've actually used some freeper analyses of articles in class with my students to show them how to recognize opinion masquerading as fact. KUDOS to the most erudite Forum on the worldwideweb.
Back when I was going through News-writing 101, that would automatically result in a failing grade. These days, sheesh....
WASHINGTON, July 20 — The political fallout began today...
It wasn't the Library of Congress it was the Natinal Archives.
I have a background in journalism, and I have to say that the way this is written is "technically" correct because the writer attributes it to Berger's lawyer; however, the writer places the emphasis of the story on Berger's explanation...that he "inadvertently" took the documents, instead of the most important and newsworthy fact that he is the subject of a criminal investigation.
We all know how the NYTimes would treat this article if it were Condi Rice. ie. "Republican NSA steals highly classified documents....blah blah blah"
Memo to NY Slimes - clinton is NOT president; nor is bergler SNA.
clintbilly is the IMPEACHED former president, bergler is the FORMER SNA.
This has to be one of the best examples of outright collusion betwen NYT and Dems I have yet to see.
Of course with both Dems and NYT they need to keep changing the story, and that has to be expensive also. Expensive as in another decade out of power, longer if justice is ever served.
What a bonehead Gergen is. Bergler admits that he removed classified documents from a secure government facility. That in itself compromises the security of the United States.
If any FReepers are going to the Boston convention, I suggest showing up with lots of papers stuffed in your pants and socks.
Perhaps the Doppler shift caused the light to look green?
What a bonehead traitor Gergen is.
Can you imagine someone having the honor of working for President Reagan, seeing greatness up close, and then deciding to join the Clintonistas instead? What the hell happened in this idiot's life that he decided socialism, weakness and evil were the way to go instead of enterprise, defense and morality?
10. Was absent on day Clinton held Document Handling 101 class at local Hooters
9. After two weeks on Jenny Craig, socks wouldn’t stay up, and neither would pants
8. Street guy taught him trick to staying warm
9. Craig Livingston said it was OK
7. Hillary asked him to
6. Marine guarding files had his back turned
5. Ran out of firewood at home, and it was a cold day
4. Kerry had been in Aspen and wanted a briefing
3. Joe Wilson didn’t actually have any documents and felt left out
2. The media would bury the story
1. With Jamie Gorelick already on the Commission stealing them wouldn’t matter
IMHO, it would be a good idea to use ellipses in the extracted article to indicate that the "inadvertently" paragraph is actually the fourteenth paragraph in the article, instead of the second paragraph (as it appears here).
I meant "excerpted", not "extracted".
He was a Humphrey DemocRAT before he took a job in the Nixon Administration. Looks like he's returning to his roots.
And Hillary was a former first lady of an impeached president and a paper shredder. This stuff with Berger isn't surprising considering that Hillary got by with shredding documents and both Clintons lied about everything.
So Solly -- Blain Lock-
Sandy Berger just came out with a statement, per Fox News.
He says he made an honest mistake which he deeply regrets.
He is a LITTLE nervous! His voice was cracking. I didn't get it all but it was really short. Reminded me of the "clinton years".
"David Gergen, a former advisor to both Democrat and Republican presidents vouched for Samuel [Burglar] on the Today Show today." He called him "a hero on the war on terror, a man of utter integrity, saying that this is suspicious that this would leak just before the release of the 9/11 commission's report." He said it's "not even clear to Burglar that this investigation is still underway and no charges have been brought against him." When NBC's Katie Couric followed up and asked Gergen if he was suggesting this story might be coming out now as a distraction. Gergen said, "Well, it has those overtones. Let's let more facts come out." Gergen said he doesn't think the Berger story reflects on Senator Kerry. He did say, however, that what would hurt the Kerry campaign would be if Sandy Burglar would have to withdraw from his role as an advisor to the Kerry campaign.
So it's the timing of the leak now. It's not the "nature of the evidence." It's not "the seriousness of the charge." Now we've got a third element in all this: it's the timing of the leak that we must really look at here. Don't you love these people, how they instantly shift the goalposts? When it's us that they're looking at, the nature of the evidence doesn't matter; it's the seriousness of the charge. Now we've got a pretty serious charge, "That's nothing. That's nothing." The seriousness of the charge is nothing! It's the timing of the leak. (Laughing.) Pretty soon we're going to hear there's "no controlling legal authority" here. I'm sorry to laugh at this, but you have to. You just have to. I mean, it is serious stuff, and I'm not through with the serious explanation of all this. (Laughing.) The timing of the leak. I mean, David Gergen would know. He served with numerous presidents. He's known to speak off the record with numerous reporters, but what about the "timing"? Since they want to focus on the timing of this so-called leak, let's look at the timing. Would it have been preferable that the leak occur later? Or, since we're talking the timing now, would they have preferred the leak occur later or would they have preferred the leak earlier? And when there's a criminal investigation of a high profile person like Sandy Berger, it's rarely kept secret.
Why was President Clinton's testimony before this commission not made public ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.