Posted on 07/24/2004 8:46:23 AM PDT by tomball
9-11 commission report shows handwritten responses on documents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger blocked four separate plans of action against the al-Qaida terrorist network from 1998 to 2000, according to the newly released 9-11 commission report.
The report cites a 1998 meeting in which then-director of the Central Intelligence Agency George Tenet presented a plan to capture Osama bin Laden, notes the New York Sun.
"In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured," the report says, citing a May 1, 1998, CIA memo. "He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted."
Berger, who served in the Clinton administration, is facing a Justice Department investigation for allegedly smuggling secret files out of the National Archives prior to the 9-11 commission hearings.
After news of the probe broke Monday, Berger stepped down from his informal position as security adviser to Democratic Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign.
The 9-11 commission report presents three other opportunities given to Berger to take action against bin Laden:
June 1999: The potential target was an al-Qaida terrorist camp in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms. But the commission cites Berger's handwritten notes on the meeting paper, which referred to "the presence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60-65 casualties." The Berger notes said, "if he responds, we're blamed."
Dec. 4, 1999: National Security Council counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke sent Berger a memo suggesting a strike against al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan. According to the commission, however, in the "margin next to Clarke's suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, 'no.'"
August 2000: Berger was presented with a plan to attack bin Laden based on aerial surveillance from a "Predator" drone. "In the memo’s margin," the commission said, "Berger wrote that before considering action, 'I will want more than verified location: we will need, at least, data on pattern of movements to provide some assurance he will remain in place.'"
The New York paper, in an editorial asks why Berger made these critical decisions rather than the president. The commission report notes the decisions "were made by the Clinton administration under extremely difficult domestic political circumstances. Opponents were seeking the president's impeachment."
The Sun opines, had Berger "been a little less reluctant to act, a little more open to taking pre-emptive action, maybe the 2,973 killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks would be alive today."
It's the VRWC's fault.
Thank God these people aren't calling the shots anymore.
Gee, imagine that. Berger blocked plans to get Bin Laden. And 3,000 Americans died - and the RATS blamed President Bush.
Yes children, elect John Kerry. Given the chance, the RATS will exceed that number - times 1000!
The RAT party is the party of consumption and waste. Revenues or lives, it doesn't matter to these bastards.
How is Berger's stealing of these documents any less significant than Watergate? His actions were clearly for political purposes.
What did Kerry know and when did he know it?
bingo....
Pete Williams of NBC said there is a Grand Jury looking into Sandy.
That is my concern, too. Once, the two parties might have represented a difference of opinion on governing. Now, I view the differences as being so vast, that one party seems bent on destroying this country, while the other is--however clumsily--trying to save it. I can't help but look at my liberal cousins in California as part of the problem, instead of part of the family. It's creating a huge divide in our family--and among our friends.
I'd like to read tomorrow that somewhere around 2973 families are mumbling to themselves, "Get me Johnnie Cochran and Robert Shapiro!"
BUMP
I beleive there are many more conservatives in California than you realize. For the record, the Republican party leadership in the state couldn't be more helpful to the democrats if they were on their payroll. The rank and file have their acts together pretty well, but whenever they attempt to install new leadership, the national party wonks get involved and block it.
Ask any long term California Republican who has cared enough to become involved in politics at all, and they'll tell you much the same thing.
All the major propositions and most of our better candidates receive little or no support from the state leadership. You have to drag them kicking and screaming along with you if you want to win.
Berger and the other "moderate" Arab guys in Willie's corrupt government bought it and agreed that, since he was harmless, it didn't hurt to pick up some change NOT doing what they had rationalized made sense to not do!
Oh man, doesn't that pretty much sum them up!
"All the major propositions and most of our better candidates receive little or no support from the state leadership. You have to drag them kicking and screaming along with you if you want to win."
"Oh man, doesn't that pretty much sum them up!"
Why? Is the California republican leadership not willing to stick their necks out for the conservatives?
Just wondering what's going on out there.
We have had some good people, but looking at the big picture, "girliemen" pretty much sums up the Republican leadership. I'm sorry folks, but the truth hurts. I have observed California Republicans for a long time now. I call it like I see it.
There's enough blame to go around, unfortunately. Apparently, a plan was presented by Richard Clarke (yes, that Richard Clarke) in the last weeks of the Clinton Administration to basically take out Al Qaeda or at least severely weaken them. The Bush Administration, adored by most FReepers, basically gave this plan a low priority. We could easily say that had Bush expedited this plan, 3,000 people might be alive today. Just like, had Clinton accepted that offering of Bin Laden from the Sudan, 3,000 people might be alive today.
Like I said, plenty of blame to go around.
When Simon ran for governor in 2002, the state leadership did almost nothing for him. If they'd have gotten behind the guy he would have won. He actually did pretty well considering.
As for why, I haven't the foggiest. I don't think the Republican leadership views conservatism to be it's bellweather driving force. They act as if they think conservatives are the opposites of the Nader camp.
Thanks to both of you; I'm just used to Texas politics...don't know much about California.
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.