Meanwhile, Judith Miller Sits in Jail; The Wrong Reporter Gets Arrested (thought provoking!)

Thanks for the kudos BG. Your deconstruction is interesting since it does corroborate what a lot of us are thinking, and also underlines what I posted on the thread, BACKSTORY: BERGER PLEADS GUILTY TO TAKING MATERIALS (this should fuel your outrage), as follows:

It could be reasonably postulated that the Berger pilfer was not covering for the Clintons as is commonly thought, but that the Archives theft was to reinforce Berger's usefulness as candidate John Kerry's national security advisor---to get something to use against GWB.

That possibility became more apparent when it was discovered that the US Pentagon traitor Lawrence Franklin gave US national security documents to AIPAC, and that candidate Kerry hired Steve Grossman, a past AIPAC president, as his key campaign advisor. Suspicions arose that candidate Kerry was being coached, and that somebody might have been leaking privileged national security information to Kerry in the effort to defeat President Bush.

Berger was serving as Kerry's national security consultant when he pilfered the classified US national security documents from the National Archives. So, the Berger theft may not be as originally suspected (a Clinton cover-up)----but an attempt to compromise the 2004 election to undermine George W Bush's reelection.

Americans ---that is to say the “little people”----need to know the extent of culpability engendered by these activities--- primarily whether our President was harmed ----and whether Sen Kerry and his advisors--- Steve Grossman and Sandy Berger---played any part in undercutting the reelection chances of President Bush through the use of stolen classified documents, and, of course, the degree to which spying impaired President Bush's ability to conduct US foreign policy. One of the most important questions Americans need to know about the connection between the Berger thievery, and the AIPAC-Pentagon treachery, is the degree to which these activities hurt President Bush and the president's 2004 campaign.

We should consider that Berger's thievery served several purposes:

(1) A coordinated attempt to coach Kerry----positioning Berger to get a Cabinet post if Kerry was elected, and if Hillary (gag) is elected.

(2) Covering up for the Clintons' pre-911 negligence.

(3) And finally, even after the Archives burglary, Berger was slithering around Washington involved in profiting from US government business in Iraq.

Berger's Firm to Aid Oil Interests in Iraq
By Judy Sarasohn
Washington Post Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A29

Stonebridge International, the "global strategy firm" founded by Berger, has taken on an interesting client, Gulfsands Petroleum Ltd., a private Houston-based oil and gas company. Gulfsands, along with its larger partner Devon Energy Corp. of Oklahoma City, has oil and gas exploration and development interests in Syria. And now Gulfsands is looking to Iraq. "Stonebridge is assisting Gulfsands in organizing meetings in Washington with administration officials to discuss the company's business interests in Iraq and U.S. policy toward Syria," Stonebridge Vice Chairman H.P. Goldfield said in an e-mail response to written questions.

Remember, his Gulfsands office is the place where Berger cut up the classified Archives documents.

We should ponder this: when caught with the goods in his skivvies, Sandy Berger admitted to taking top secret documents the National Archives did not even know went missing. ....leading one to conclude, Berger took a lot more than he has been wont to reveal, a lot more than even the Archives knew about.

Berger's plea deal is conditioned on Berger's "cooperation." We need to make very certain that we, the people, got something in return for Berger's plea deal. Like for whose benefit the documents were being stolen, when was the order given, who was involved in the conspiracy, and who knew about it.

We demand to know:

(1) Have all the people who conspired with Berger been named and prosecuted?

(2) Did Berger actually destroy stolen docs--as he said---or are they being secreted for Berger's self-serving reasons: (a) for Hillary's campaign in exchange for Berger getting a political appointment, for (b) Berger's financial benefit in his oil consulting business, (c) to cover-up 9/11?

(3) Berger admitted to stealing documents the Archives did not list as missing .

(4) What did he do with them? Is his plea deal conditioned on Berger returning these as well?

(5) Who was in on the cover-up?

In an earlier public statement, Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department’s public integrity section, would not discuss Berger’s motivation, but said the former national security adviser understood the rules governing the handling of classified materials.

So why isn't the public allowed to share the info about Berger's motivation?? Why is Hillman holding this back? These compelling questions should be posed to the proper authorities.

Communicate your concerns about Berger's plea deal to the judge who wwas sent to sentence Berger July 8 (now postponed to September).

U.S. Magistrate Deborah Robinson
c/o US District Court
US Dept of Justice
Judiciary Center
555 4th Street NW
Washington, DC 20530

Phone (202) 514-6933

Caution: phone number listed is a prosecutor - keep messages short and civil.

HI CA,

I'm confused. In reply #8, you claimed that Judith Miller's source "signed a release".

The only person I am aware of having signed a release is Karl Rove, and yet in reply 29 you denied that you are "implying that Rove was her source."

My question is, then, how do you know that Miller's "source" signed a release, if the "source" is not Karl Rove? Was there a report that her "source" signed such a release that I missed? Thanks.

"Judith Miller's source "signed a release"

That's what the media was saying HER LAWYER HAD STATED. Also .. it was stated that Judith didn't accept the "release" because she believed it was coersed from her source.

Just think about it for a moment .. would a flaming liberal/democrat reporter who works for the NYT be the slighest bit worried if a Rove "release" was coersed ..?? I don't think so. That's why MILLER'S SOURCE CANNOT BE KARL ROVE!!!

CA, we are in complete agreement. There is no way that Miller is trying to protect Rove. I misunderstood your post.

Whether the release was coerced or not is not Miller's concern. And Rove's lawyer reassured everyone that Rove's release is real.

I wonder who she is protecting? Wilson? Miller herself? hmmm... this is going to get very interesting before it's over.