July 22, 2004
WHO'LL DEFEND HIM NOW THAT HE'S OUT OF POWER?:
Guards Finger Berger in Sox Docs Heist (NewsMax, 7/22/04)
After three days worth of denials from his legal team, eyewitnesses to Sandy Berger's top secret document heist have confirmed that the former national security advisor did indeed stash national security secrets in his socks, as well as his pants pockets."The stuffed socks and pockets is real," a senior law enforcement official told the New York Daily News. "The (theft) was reported by the guards." [...]
Guards also told investigators that Berger repeatedly asked to be left alone so he could make private phone calls. If Berger did make any calls from the top secret National Archives reading room, investigators will want to check his cell phone records to see whom he was contacting, and whether he was discussing the purloined documents.
Any calls to ex-President Clinton, who had dispatched Berger on the mission in advance of his own 9/11 testimony, could have staggering implications for the Democratic Party.
When Clinton testified before the 9/11 Commission on April 9, he was accompanied by Berger and his longtime damage-controller, Bruce Lindsey.
Hard to believe good Democrats like Dianne Feinstein and Joe Lieberman will still whore their souls for Mr. Clinton now that he's out of office. Posted by Orrin Judd at July 22, 2004 10:39 AM
Good Democrats? I hardly think Di Fi is one of them; maybe Lieberman on months with 31 days in them. My senator, Ben Nelson, is a good Democrats. Ironically, my other Ben Nelson is a better senator than my Republican one, Chuck Hagel.
Posted by: pchuck at July 22, 2004 10:59 AM>Hard to believe good Democrats like Dianne
>Feinstein and Joe Lieberman will still whore
>their souls for Mr. Clinton now that he's out
>of office.
Easy to believe once you figure in either of two basic premises:
1) Clinton is a God, their Personal LORD and Savior.
2) They are "good Democrats", i.e. Good Little Party Members, and this is The Party Line.
war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, oceania has never been at war with eurasia, the chocolate ration has been increased from twenty grams to ten, 2 + 2 = 5, bush is goldstein...
Posted by: Ken at July 22, 2004 12:15 PMUnless Sandy was ordering out for a pizza, some other people may have some 'splainin' to do by this weekend if their name(s) turn up on the cellphone records during the time Berger was in the archives room. And I would assume in a six-month-old investigation, the folks at Verizon, T-Mobile, Cingular or whoever his phone proviider is already have had their records subpoenaed.
Posted by: John at July 22, 2004 1:07 PMWe've already established who they are...now we're just quibbling over price.
Posted by: Noel at July 22, 2004 1:09 PMAmusing but, unlike Wilson, I fail to see the significance of it.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 22, 2004 3:28 PMOf stealing documents relating to a federal investigation?
Posted by: oj at July 22, 2004 3:44 PMHarry:
Ask yourself: why was he stuffing papers? To remove something or to tip someone off or to find out what the Commission already knew?
This is much more significant than Joe Wilson, because Berger is a former NSA, and because he might be accused of a crime (aside from the raw politics). At least now, all Wilson can be charged with is gross stupidity and negligence (along with lying, although he wasn't under oath).
Posted by: jim hamlen at July 22, 2004 3:49 PMHe was apparently trying to destroy evidence. Was it only evidence that the Clinton administration was incompetent at combating terrorism? Or something more?
Wretchard at Belmont Club is linking Berger to Wilson and Clarke as parts of a unified disinformation campaign. That seems unlikely to me, but would be interesting if true.
Posted by: pj at July 22, 2004 5:14 PMWell, Wilson's statements came out during policy formulation, and so they may have had some effect.
Whatever crime Berger committed last year was, I have to assume, ineffective as far as events go.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 22, 2004 6:07 PMHow did Nixon covering up Watergate affect the initial crime?
Posted by: oj at July 22, 2004 6:14 PMNot at all. But your example is not parallel, unless you know Berger was covering up an earlier crime.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 23, 2004 1:53 AMNixon hadn't committed a crime, until he covered one up.
Posted by: oj at July 23, 2004 10:02 AMHarry:
The 'crime' that had Berger stuffing and hiding in that room was the glaring ineptitude of the US government in facing known terror threats from Jan. 1993 on. Like his patrons, Berger was driven by politics, because some things just can't be whitewashed to look good.
Posted by: jim hamlen at July 23, 2004 5:10 PMExactly, jim. So what?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 24, 2004 3:21 PMDiscount prescription Fioricet online
Posted by: fiorcet at November 17, 2004 12:34 AM