It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Did we ever figure out what Sandy Berger stole from the 9/11 Commision?

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 09:43 PM
This story got minimal coverage when it occured. The 9/11 commision mandate was to find out what went wrong and make suggestions to prevent such attacks as 9/11 from happening again. One wonders how viable any of their conclusions or suggestions could be if documents were stolen and shreaded. I wonder what was taken or destroyed that we DON'T know about because the perpetrator was not caught...


On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Berger for taking as many as fifty classified documents, in October 2003, from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were commissioned from Richard Clarke about the Clinton administration's handling of millennium terror threats. When initially questioned, Berger claimed that the removal of top-secret documents in his attache-case and handwritten notes in his pants and jacket pockets was accidental. He would later, in a guilty plea, admit to deliberately removing materials and then cutting them up with scissors.

What is he trying to hide? Who is he trying to protect?! How can this be so easily overlooked by Americans in any rational discussion of 9/11?

[edit on 1-9-2006 by Apoc]

posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 12:54 AM
In my opinon he was protecting the clinton adminstration. no and, ifs, or buts about it. Now we know who truly was behind the 9-11 attacks. Why else would he hide it. The attacks were done to bring us where we are today and its only going to get worse. Of course nothing was done to him. Their tafe-lon nothing sticks to them.

posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 04:39 AM
These documents were later speculated to be concerning the pre-warning that was gathered from intelligence where Bin Laden was indicated as a threat. This can be understood by the finger falling on him within hours, before the attack was claimed. They knew where he was, and that he was involved in International Terror (for some reason believed prior to be benign).

Some preambled eminent attack, and most sat by idle.

If it were to be known there was an indication something might have happened, seriously, it would be disastrous for the current administration, and gov't as a whole.

posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 10:40 AM
It just amazes how little was made of this. You have the deaths of over 3000 people. A commision investigating it, and some official steals and destroys documents?! No one seems to care. He should have been put on trial for high treason!
With all the talk of thermite, inside jobs, Israel connection...pick you conspiracy theory, no one seems concerned with the conspiracy that we have actual evidence and proof of... The theft and destruction of obviously critical documents from an official who was high up in the administration that was in office when the whole thing was planned!

Now you understand why you can't trust your media...they will piece parcel out whatever information they feel works for their political agenda and supress info that doesn't.

posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 10:44 AM
Wasn't he the guy who walked out of a building with Top Secret papers stuffed down his pants ... and he claimed that he didn't realize they were there?

I know it was one of those guys .. was he the one???

posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 12:32 PM


Did we ever figure out what Sandy Berger stole from the 9/11 Commision?

He did not steal anything from the 9/11 commision as far as I am aware.

He did however remove copies of documents from the National Archives without authorization, destroyed 3 them, and then lied, saying he lost them.

The 5 copies of the document were an "after action review" of the Clinton administration's activities to stop terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration.

By the way, all this information is provided in the links at the end of the wiki page you linked in your original post.

What is he trying to hide? Who is he trying to protect?

Good question. Especially since he since he only destroyed 3 of the 5 copies, each of which were very similar, and only copies of the originals, who knows what he was trying to hide. Most likely trying to cover his butt about something. Quite a puzzle.

How can this be so easily overlooked by Americans in any rational discussion of 9/11?

Probably because they were only copies and the originals still exist. Also because he had compiled a massive amount of information about al qaeda, and turned it all over to Rice during the change of administration. Rice reportedly didn't even look at it until after 9/11. In addition, the Clinton administration gave warnings about terror at every opportunity, and in fact had proposed counter measures that were in progress except for congressional interference. For example:

Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international terrorism and bin Laden’s network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on. Consider the steps offered by Clinton’s 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion.

The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:
Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million
Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million
Passenger Profiling: $10 million
Screener Training: $5.3 million
Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million
Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4 million
Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million
Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million
Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million
Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million
Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million
Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million
Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million
Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million

In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al-Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Senators Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.

Specifically, Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al-Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, gutted the portions of Clinton’s bill dealing with this matter, calling them “totalitarian.“

In fact, Gramm was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders. It should also be noted that Gramm’s wife, Wendy, sat on the Enron Board of Directors.

[edit on 9/2/06 by makeitso]

posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 06:46 PM
Still seems way too strange for me. Makes we wonder what wasn't caught.
As far as your external sources, I'm sorry but their tone leaves credibility questions with me. It's obviously a partisan site throwing out politically slanted interpretations of events. I don't trust it. Know one can tell me that if this was a Bush administration official, there would be hell to pay and we'd still be hearing about it.

Seeing as this is an excerpt from the mission state of the above, I doubt we will get unbiased views...

Now fast-forward to the Iraq War. George W Bush not only wants to play the strongman, but his supporters primed by the Violent Hollywood American Culture demand that he play the role of the strongman. The role is defined by the culture and George W Bush can’t be seen to be the “wimp,” like his father the diplomat. So, poised with the news of Iraqi insurgents not happy with the American Occupation he tells the world, “Bring It On.”

Not everyone in America is comfortable with this sheriff. Some of us don’t believe that George W Bush and his gang is working for the common good. In fact, using the metaphor of the Wild West, some of us believe that George W Bush is actually the outlaw trying to run and ruin the town. The people of the community are willing to put up with a little personal indiscretion, but when a varmint crosses the line the community is willing to rise up and speak out. And sometimes speaking out isn’t enough. And that’s when we say, “Bring It On.”

[edit on 2-9-2006 by Apoc]

[edit on 2-9-2006 by Apoc]

posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 06:58 PM
Yup, I wonder what else didn't come to light too. He was in the archives for 30 hours after all.

I also agree about the external sources. Their tone is partisan, and I appologize for that. Unfortunately it was all I had time to link. On top of that, considering that it is a political issue, I doubt that non-partisan information will be forthcoming easily.

However, there are enough hard facts in them that the information should be easy to disprove if you like.

[edit on 9/2/06 by makeitso]

new topics

top topics


log in