Posted on 07/21/2004 9:25:10 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
I think your theory is sound. That action is probably pretty sound procedure.
However, I would guess that the comments would have been rather raucus and foolhearty, making fun of the CIA and/or the FBI .. or even some comments purporting to play headgames with the intel groups.
This group has no respect for convention, sense of duty; they were rude, disrespectful of govt protocol. I believe the notes were damaging in character issues and showed a complete lack of seriousness about national security.
"Turns out Kerry camp released the info"
How do you know that ..??
As for Kerry's speeches .. Rush was talking about them today. He said that Berger took stuff in Sept and October; Kerry made a speech in December regarding port safety .. the memo Berger took probably had specifics about the lack of port safety and Kerry's speech could have taken advantage of that information .. allowing Kerry the opportunity to form a plan for port safety based on BUSH's LACK OF PROTECTION OF THE PORTS (which was really Richard Clarke's assessment of the Clinton admin's lack of attention to port safety). Kerry's speech could have been based on stolen, classified information which Kerry had no business seeing.
And .. it was Kerry's campaign which refused to attend intel briefings (they were too busy) .. saying they had their own intelligence. Was that intel the stuff Berger was pilfering from the Archives ..??
On something of a tangent, I recall that someone I knew years ago had occasion to inspect some rare books and manuscripts owned by Harvard University and kept in its facility in the western part of MA. He said he was not allowed to bring anything in, i.e., pens, pencils, etc. and was watched by an armed guard the whole time.
Is it just me .. or are the dems actually self-destructing as we watch ..??
I recall something about it, but not the details. I believe he was running for congress from Lowell -- Marty Meehan's current district. IIRC, the Lowell Sun went after it and there is some indication that it lost Kerry the election.
If the staff saw him stealing papers, why didn't they stop him? That is a good question that was asked on O'Reilly last night.
It will soon become a very common question from the Dem attack machine, so we'd better come up with a good answer.
This is a man who committed a serious crime and it should be treated that way.
Joking minimizes the seriousness.
Mark for later...
There is not a one among them that could be considered honorable or putting the security of their country ahead of personal agenda.
That makes the most sense of any explanation I've heard.
I've seen such varying stories that then seem to change in minor ways that I'm not certain, Dolphy.
I've started saving Berger stories that interest me so we can go back and compare the wording.
Yes, but I think that applies to scholars, the press, etc. getting a look at the records. It wouldn't apply in this instance.
My sister, who spent years as an archivist and librarian, answered this question for me last night: she said you have to remember that probably 99.9% of librarians are Dems. (This is so to such an extent that the ALA and their other professional associations are always trying to support Dem causes and candidates, regardless of the fact that this has nothing to do with library work.)
I would suspect that the staff wanted to avoid an "incident," but at the same time realized the criminal implications of letting him flat-out get away with it. Hence the tactful call to Lindsey. This not only gave Berger time to get whatever he wanted out of the papers, but clearly was intended to bury the whole thing while at the same time permitting the staff to say they took action.
The different drafts may contain different versions of the same story to see how each come across in the polls. Does this one make Bill look more like a hero or this version?
I agree. What was he censoring? Sounds like a rare, appropriate instance of the term "cover-up." He was trying to erase, cover up something from the Clinton era.
I'm thinking you may be right... Sounds to me like the archive security marked some documents, and when Berger gave them back, they did not have the mark. He had pulled a switcheroo.
As far as the actual allegations, Gergen said last night that he's just basing his comments of Berger's innocence of maliciousness on what has been admitted to by Berger (via the media and via phonecalls to Berger). He acknowledges that the rumors aren't good news. Now, if facts come out in a courtroom and become more than rumor, he might be more critical of Berger. I don't like Gergen, but if he changes his tune later once things are more concrete, he gets a pass from me.
Good. At least something in Washington is still a secret.
Policy and procedure question:
Is it the norm [for NARA] to call an attorney first when something is missing? Why would they not call Berger? Bruce Lindsey may be the Clinton point man, but Berger took the documents, not bubba.
"....They devised a coding system and marked the documents they knew Berger was interested in canvassing, and watched him carefully...."
A coding system takes a little planning. Call a spade a spade. It was a sting operation. Would this have been done on their own initative or at the behest of the FBI?
Previous reports had him reviewing the docs for the Clinton administration to prepare for testimony before the commission. This article states Berger was reviewing docs for the Bush administration to determine what should be declassified for the 9/11 panel. If that was the case, why would they not call White House Counsel instead of Bruce Lindsey? Any significance?
I am somewhat surprised to find this article in the Washington Post. No apologies, no excuses, no "much ado about nothing" spin. Does this mean the story really does have legs?
Lastly, is Berger one to "fall on his sword" for anyone? If, as has been reported he is cooperating, does anyone have an educated guess as to whether or not he is naming names?
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.