Posted on 12/23/2006 4:00:01 PM PST by Valin
PJM is making public on this website for the first time the report by the Inspector General’s office regarding Sandy Berger and his theft and destruction of classified national security documents — named in the report as, “The ‘W’ Intelligence Files.” This document was obtained for review by Pajamas Media.
Berger, as the former National Security Adviser for the Clinton Administration, was granted sole access to these documents in order to vet them prior to their being turned over to the 9/11 Commission and congress. As this file shows, he used this position of trust to take a number of documents and destroy several.
[Editors’ Note: The ramifications of this report are profound when placed against the questions of who knew what and when did they know it in the Clinton years prior to 9/11.
As is common with all such documents, the pages have been heavily redacted following a security review. Still, enough facts remain to give readers a clear picture of Berger’s access and actions leading up to the crimes for which he has pled guilty.
Pajamas Media will be examining and investigating the leads and questions that arise from this document in the coming days. At the same time we recognize that our resources in this regard are limited.
Therefore we are making this document public and ask that it be reviewed by knowledgeable people to see what information can be gleaned from the facts that remain visible after the security review.
A few questions emerge on the first reading for which answers would, we believe, be telling and valuable to the public’s understanding of the deeper roots of 9/11.
Among these are:
What was role of Omar Bashir, President of the Sudan, and his relationship to Berger and President Clinton during the days when he offered to cooperate in the capture of Osama Bin Laden?
What was in the ten to twenty pages of notes Berger is believed to have taken out of the reviewing room against regulations during his first session?
Who was the person or persons Berger contacted during the numerous “private cell phone calls” he was allowed to make during his active review of the classified documents?
Exactly what was in the documents Berger stole from the archives, some of which he has confessed to destroying?
The list can be extended as one reads the OIG report carefully. We are confident that by releasing this document in this manner we can call upon the networked intelligence of the Web to find within these pages not only more questions, but the beginnings of the answer to the central mystery of this entire incident: “Who was Berger looking to protect from the 9/11 Commission’s inquiry? Was it just himself and his role in our National Security in the Clinton years? Or were there others that the documents would either embarrass or implicate? ]
This can't be. Berger and Clinton said it was inadvertent. They had a good laugh over how sloppy Berger was.
Page 19
"Mr. Berger panicked because he realized he was caught. Mr. Berger lied to (blacked out) telling (blacked out) he did not take the documents"
page 8:
Mr Berger said that if [redacted] [redacted] had asked for the document back, it would have "triggered" a decision for him to give the documents back.
-
That's what Berger SAYS. However, your quote from page 19 shows that his ACTIONS were not to come clean but to lie.
When put in the context of his other lies, it's not unreasonable to believe that his claim of being "almost honest" is yet another lie.
He had to do someting or conceal something to take a risk like that. Nothing else is plausible and MSM and their lackeys are asking us to believe the best. If Berger was GOP they would be on him like Watergate.
“private cell phone calls”
Amazing isn't it? After all this time you would think that the NY slimes would have gotten to the bottom of it.
I don't believe that Peter Lance covered the Democrat Hamilton -- nor did he cover very many Clinton -- connections, at least based upon the several interviews I've heard.
(He seems more interested in blaming Bush1 for the first WTC bombing and Bush2 for almost everything else. Screw-ups during the Clinton administration were just events, not Clinton's fault. Not so starting Jan. 20, 2001, everything was Bush2's fault. And, oh.. yes, Dr. Rice lied. Having said that (felt good)..
So Lance hates Bush. Ho hum. Nevertheless, he's done a hell of a job and maybe he's just about got it all nailed down. I.e., why no one seemed to (wanted to?) notice until 9/11/2001
According to Peter Lance in his new book Ali Mohamed told the FBI in 1993 that Osama bin Laden is running an organization called al Qaeda. Mohamed revealed that he himself trains hijackers for al Qaeda at camps in the Sudan. The al Qaeda stuff is confirmed source after source, time after time over the years leading to 9/11/01.
Here's one of the biggest Lance discoveries: the Patrick Fitzgerald connection.
One example: In 1997 Patrick Fitzgerald met with Ali Mohamed, at the time living with his wife Linda Sanchez in Sacramento. Mohamed told Fitzgerald that al Qaeda has hundreds of people prepared "to go 'operational' on a moment's notice." Patrick Fitzgerald gets quite an exposure in Lance's new book.
There's tons more in his book -- just think if only one of the Rats had been interested enough to get the stuff from Sudan -- there'd be no book.
Mr. Lance, are you listening? The Sudan - Clinton connection --uh, you could still blame the screw-up on Bush. He was a governor at the time. You could say . . . .
The press is the propaganda arm of the American left and they have an agenda...see this:
L
See link at #48.
did the docs have hand written notes on them that were not on other copies?
"I find the fact that he gets his security clearance back just in time for the next election to be troubling."
Yes, unbelievable... If he were a Republican, he would be in prison... How could he EVER be allowed back in the archives?
Bookmark for later.
Someone's going to have to explain the purpose of the "Memorandum of Interview or Activity" section. Initially, I thought it would be notes on the interview of Sandy Berger. However, it seems more like Berger's defense. Many dubious claims are made and not challenged.
page 26:
"it never occurred to mr Berger that by removing the maaar
from the archives, it wouldn't be provided to the 911 commission"
That's written as fact. How do they know what occurred or didn't occur to Berger?
and it ends on page 41 with this defense:
At some point, Mr Berger took notes. He realized he was not going to be able to reconstruct in detail all the documents he had reviewed, so he needed to take his notes home with him, about 10 to 20 pages.
So stealing multiple versions of the MAAAR and immediately destroying two of them was going to help him reconstruct the documents he had reviewed?
I don't think that it's known exactly what Berger was up to. What if he was after the most damning evidence of all? IMO.
The most damning evidence against the Clintons was their fear of those "damn scary" Christian millennium action groups, that's what totally occupied the Clintonistas, not foreigners. "Al who? Ya, mean Gore?"
Here is information about another multi-million-dollar domestic anti-terrorist exercise called "TopOff" (for Top Officials) -- followed by a description of a 1993-94 informal gathering that virtually described exactly what happened on 9/11/01, but it wasn't those damn Christians that did it so who in the Clinton adminstration cared? No one.
"Before Attack, U.S. Expected Different Hit Chemical, Germ Agents Focus of Preparations," By Joby Warrick and Joe Stephens Washington Post Staff Writers October 2, 2001
As much as $3.5 million spent in one year on "TopOff" (short for "top officials"). Ya see, the Clintonistas thought that "the world's deadliest terrorist attack . . . [would begin when] a disaffected lab technician with a goatee, Ralph Stuart, concocted a potion of deadly anthrax bacteria in his basement. Within days, the germs were set loose in Manhattan by extremists calling themselves the Millennium Action Group. [My emphasis]
By contrast international terrorism's threat was judged by a "group of military officials, terrorism experts and 'futurists' [that] met at Virginia's Langley Air Force Base in 1993 to kick around a variety of scenarios." At the Officers' Club? The guys "correctly predict[ed] several aspects of the Sept. 11 attack."
Marvin J. Cetron, a Falls Church author was one of the leaders of the exercise.
"'Targets such as the World Trade Center not only provide the requisite casualties but, because of their symbolic nature, provide more bang for the buck,' he wrote in the Futurist magazine [1994] . 'In order to maximize their odds for success, terrorist groups will likely consider mounting multiple, simultaneous operations with the aim of overtaxing a government's ability to respond, as well as demonstrating their professionalism and reach.'
"The decision not to publish detailed scenarios was made partly out of a fear that it could give terrorists ideas, participants said. A draft was circulated through the Pentagon, the Justice Department and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but senior agency officials ultimately decided against a public release."
"That was a mistake," someone noted.
To borrow from the Bush bashers: Clinton knew! Clinton let it happen!
bump
I don't know how they could say that with a straight face. It wasn't anything written within the document itself. That would have been spiffed already. What he was trying to get rid of were personal notes written in the margins by slick himself. Probably something like "let's hope these Rubes believe this crap."
The GAO said that in the late 1990s "federal counterterrorism programs were based on 'improbable, worst-case scenarios' that presented an 'exaggerated view' of the likelihood of a chemical or biological assault. Terrorists would have to overcome enormous obstacles to unleash enough biological or chemical agents to kill large numbers of people, the GAO found . . .'agencies' initiatives appear at odds with the judgment of the intelligence community' . . .'We were blinded by an excess of zeal,' said Martha Crenshaw, a professor of government at Wesleyan University who studies terrorist motivations."
The Administration had "an exaggerated view," "agencies at odds with the judgment of the intelligence community," and was "blinded by an excess of zeal."
What was that zeal? Gee, I wonder. Y2k approached and the imagined Christian militant groups troubled the Clintonistas greatly. Christians don't do suicide, it has to be chemical or biological, reasoned the Clintonistas, I bet.
Once again, to borrow from the Bush bashers -- anything that happened on his watch was his fault, thus, Clinton is a bigot and dumbass!
Berger was just trying to destroy the evidence.
"Berger was just trying to destroy the evidence."
The Clinton admin trumpets its success on capturing the millenium bomber.....however, if you read the Seattle Times expose it is clear that Clinton, et al, had nothing to do with the capture. It wasn't their security, it wasn't their plan.....it was just good luck that we had good people watching the north border! The heroes were alert customs agents who trusted their instincts!
Maybe that is the evidence Berger didn't want exposed? And maybe that is why so many on both sides of the aisle are ignoring this travesty since all administrations tend to pump up and attach to any success on their watch????
I am sending the pdf file to my e-mail to be read when I have a little more time (probably after the holidays).
Thank you so much for the ping to this, Iowa Granny.
I will remain perplexed until the end of my days why the Republicans didn't order a full scale Congressional investigation into this matter. The embarrassment level to the Clintons would have been delicious to behold.
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.