Posted on 03/07/2005 4:13:42 PM PST by Libloather
Indict Sandy Berger now
Posted: March 7, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
WorldNetDaily.com
"To me the great danger is the complacency we have fallen into three and half years after 9-11."
Who said that?
A. Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff
B. CIA Director Porter Goss
C. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez
D. FBI Director Robert S. Mueller
Any of those choices would have been a good guess. But none of those men made that statement. Instead, it was made, in my estimation, by a most unlikely character – former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger.
He made the comment a week ago while participating in a panel discussion on national security issues at Purdue University.
Why is it strange that Berger made such a statement?
Because Berger is the perfect, walking, talking example of just how complacent we have become as a nation about national security.
It has been nearly eight months since we first learned Berger was caught red-handed removing highly classified documents from the National Archives. It has been 14 months since he was caught. And it has been at least two months since a federal grand jury began investigating a possible indictment of Berger, and perhaps others, for the crime.
That is my definition of "complacency."
In a time of war, a former national security adviser is pinched lifting national security secrets and 14 months later he is still out on the lecture circuit talking about national security. He has also lately been advising Sen. Hillary Clinton, thought to be a future presidential candidate, just as he advised Sen. John Kerry, last year's Democratic nominee for the presidency on national security matters.
You talk about the fox guarding the henhouse! This man should be in a maximum security penitentiary, not lecturing college students and certainly not advising presidential candidates.
And think about the irony of Berger preaching about complacency. Since he was busted, we have learned that Sandy Burglar, excuse me, Berger blocked four separate plans of action against the al-Qaida terrorist network between 1998 and 2000. That's what the 9-11 commission report found. Oh, and by the way, what was Berger doing in the National Archives when he was found stuffing national security secrets into his trousers and socks? He was said to be preparing former President Clinton to testify before that commission!
They say the wheels of justice move slowly.
In this case they are moving too slowly.
It's time for the Justice Department, now under new leadership, to get serious about the Berger caper.
Let's face it. If you or I were caught rifling through highly classified national security secrets, it wouldn't take 14 months for the government to bring us to justice. If you or I were caught stealing highly classified national security secrets, it's not likely we'd be taken seriously as a lecturer on the subject of national security on college campuses. If you or I were caught flagrantly violating laws governing national security secrets, we wouldn't be invited to advise senators or future presidential candidates on national security matters.
Which raises what will become a serious question for this Justice Department and the Bush administration if they don't indict Sandy Berger or explain to the American people why he's above the law. What did Berger find in those archives? Did he find something so incriminating on this administration that no one dares lay a finger on him? Was he in the National Archives doing more than refreshing Bill Clinton's memory? Was he covering up past abuses of his national security efforts? Or was he digging up dirt on the current administration?
What, if anything, does Sandy Berger have on the Republicans that prevents full and speedy prosecution of this crime?
If the Bush administration and the Gonzales Justice Department think they can sweep this crime under the rug and score some political points with their political opposition, they are sorely mistaken. It will then become a bipartisan scandal. It will then become clear to the American people that there are two standards of justice in this country – one for ordinary Americans and another for the privileged political elite.
Sandy Berger said something else of interest while speaking at Purdue more than a week ago. He said: "We need to make sure that the American dream is perceived as positive throughout the world."
He's right about that. We also need to make sure it is perceived as positive right here in the good old USA, too. And that's a good reason to indict Sandy Berger sooner rather than later.
It took over 2 years to prepare the case against Enron .. and now people want INSTANT JUSTICE. Good grief!
Exactly. I've long hoped that after Gonzales took the helm (and he JUST did that) hopefully we'll see action...but they are going to make sure the t's are crossed and i's dotted.
There in an ongoing investigation of Berger (and his collaborators, I'm sure).
Do you want in indictment that's going to result in a solid case and conviction...not just of Berger but his cohorts? Or just a feel good indictment that can't be sustained?
And your evidence to support that claim would be ..????
If I need to provide you evidence that the Enron situation is more complicated than a guy stealing classified documents, this isn't going to be a very fruitful discussion.
Yes. Berger was only stealing the documents for his own use (which would be???). We're not interested one bit in why or for whom he took them. Right?
Make no mistake, this is complex and I prefer to get to the bottom of the scheme rather than take the easy and obvious culprit to task and leave the others involved unaccountable.
You're not in a position to take that superior tone since your argument is the weak one here.
Stealing money .. stealing documents - and .. Berger was visiting the National Archives several times over the years, and I bet they're trying to establish just how much stuff he may have taken .. I dare say an "instant" resolution to what Berger did just doesn't seem probable to me.
And .. if you're not willing to defend your statements - then maybe it's better not to say them. To just make wild claims that the govt isn't doing this or that - demands evidence to support it - no evidence .. sorry!
And I love the comeback - insinuating that I'm the reason the discussion won't be fruitful - when you're the person making the claim ..??
Never once did I ask myself what would these people do when the Clinton years passed. It never occured to me that all of the above were born, and thrive on scandal and corruption. It never once entered my mind that if a decent, good administration was at the helm that all of the above would fight tooth and nail to remain relevant.
It should have, because the sources that I once thought were manna from heaven quickly evolved into carictures of themselves, and this piece is a great example. There is plenty of possible dirt on Berger, but Farah isn't content to write about Berger. No, Farah has to insinuate that Bush and Gonazales are corrupt in Clinton fashion and in Farah's words trying to, "sweep this crime under the rug and score some political points" That little dig at President Bush is IMHO totally uncalled for.
You are correct! You cannot rush into court because the whole thing stinks to high heaven - you have to be maticulous and cross all the t's and dot all the i's.
When you rush to judgment too many mistakes are made and terrible crimes can go unpunished.
I agree the feds may have waited - but it may have been on purpose - knowing Ashcroft was leaving and wanting him to be able to finish up other cases and not having to dive into the Berger issue. I'm glad they waited - and I hope they have such an airtight case that the snake doesn't get off easy.
But .. one issue nobody has thought of - there is a SHORT SUPPLY OF JUDGES - especially in the Appeals courts. We cannot start this process if we are not completely sure we can defend this through the Appeals process. That's crucial.
You really think they stand a chance of getting anyone beyond Berger?
You talk about the fox guarding the henhouse! This man should be in a maximum security penitentiary, not lecturing college students and certainly not advising presidential candidates.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.
An indictment beyond Berger may not result, but I do want the case against him ironclad so that a jury will have no choice but to convict. I also would at least like the names of his co-conspirators, etc.
Well .. I'm sure that information will not be released until the trial.
----Well .. I'm sure that information will not be released until the trial.----
Dream on. There will be no trial. You can make book on that.
I like my Berger well done, burnt actually.
----I also would at least like the names of his co-conspirators, etc.---
A) There will be no trial.
B) Everyone knows who they are. So what?
C) "co-conspirators" is redundant. No "co" is needed.
D) The Bush adminstration, for reasons of its own (no stomach for hand-to-hand in the trenches, IMO) will not prosecute criminal acts by Clintonistas.
Wow, you sound like you don't know anything about the case.
Thanks for popping in, though.
Actually, I have wondered about the national security issue with the documents he took, and if Berger would try to cut a deal. First of all - his crimes demand a lot of years behind bars. And .. Berger might be able to give information which would be very useful to the DOJ.
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.