Obama and the 9/11 Cover-Up?

Originally posted by grover
More crap... to quote from the CNN article:

Berger's associates admit he took five copies of an after-action report detailing the 2000 millennium terror plot from the Archives. The aides say Berger returned to his office, discovered that three of the copies appeared to be duplicates and cut them up with scissors.

The National Archive NEVER hands out the original documents, they ALWAYS give COPIES which they ask for back. So the most Berger is guilty of is stealing and destroying COPIES not original documents as has been, and continued to be suggested by people who have no idea what they are talking about.

As for Lee Hamiliton not many people in DC have as much foreign policy experience as he does so it would be a natural for Obama or anyone to seek his imput.

Grover, it's asinine to be quoting Berger's associates to support your point.

Try doing some original research.

Nobody knows for sure what documents Berger stuffed into his pants and socks. And sorry, I'm not taking Berger's word for it, or his aides.

And it's not a smear. I just posted facts.

[SNIP]

The Archive does not give out original documents PERIOD!!! If you ask to see something they give you a copy.

It says so right up front at the main desk that that is their policy.

Mod Edit: Civility and Decorum are Required

[edit on 19-6-2008 by Gemwolf]

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin



Jamie creates a bunch of pointless, meaningless, foundationless threads, and then says "well thats not how i meant it"

if you didnt intend to insinuate that obama is linked to a 9/11 cover-up, then you should not have titled your thread and OP in such a manner.

You are political baiting.

More discussions about me. Why not discuss the issue and not the poster?

I can't help it if people have poor reading comprehension skills, or make inferences that are incorrect. "Obama and the 9/11 Cover-up?" is a question about why Obama would chose as a foreign policy advisor somebody who was responsible for investigating 9/11, and now who works for a criminal involved in stealing and destroying documents relating to 9/11.

Lee Hamiliton was a political authority figure long before the 9/11 commission.
Oh, and my example that you washed off as "idiotic and lame" ??

Please man.

I like ice cream
im white
white people like ice cream

Thats how you're approaching this. It doesnt make it true.

Thank you for providing another idiotic and pathetic example that may be ever more lame than the first.

It's not a logical fallacy as you describe. In your example there is no conscious choice to be white.

In the Berger-Obama-Hamilton connections we're talking about men who made choices. Berger chose to steal and destroy documents relating to Hamilton's 9/11 investigation. Hamilton chose to work for this criminal after the 9/11 Commission ended. Obama chose to hire Hamilton, now a lobbyist for special interest, to give him foreign policy advice.

See Andy, this thread is about conscious choices of three men. Not about unrelated and incidental coincidences.

But i can use any pictures i want and prove any case i choose if i put any amount of spin on it.

Ok, then here's your challenge. Use whatever pictures you want to spin Hamilton's hiring by Obama is in keeping with Obama's pledge NOT to be beholden to special interests.

Like I said, even if you remove the fact that Hamilton chose to go to work for a criminal, why would Obama hire a consultant for a multi-national, multi-million dollar consulting firm to be a foreign policy advisor?

This story may turn into another James Johnson-like resignation by Hamilton when it comes into the open that Hamilton works for Berger's lobbying firm. You don't think the American people deserve to know the interests represented by Obama's inner circle of advisors?

Originally posted by grover
[SNIP]

The Archive does not give out original documents PERIOD!!! If you ask to see something they give you a copy.

It says so right up front at the main desk that that is their policy.

I think calling ATS members names is against the T&C.

There was a complete expose of this incident broadcast a couple of years ago. I don't have the source in front of me, or even what network broadcast this. Officials at the National Archives spoke on camera and stated unequivocally that Berger may have taken original documents and that there is no way for them to tell what he stole.

And the fact that Berger worked out a deal with the Justice Dept. prevented any evidence or testimony from becoming public.

So just how is it that YOU claim you KNOW what Berger stole? And sources?

Mod Edit: Removed quoted insult

[edit on 19-6-2008 by Gemwolf]

[SNIP]

It took a moment to sink in but you just took me to task for citing Berger Associates... when actually I was citing the article you are using to support your idiotic claims.

So which is it? Is the article a valid source when you use it and then an invalid source when I quote from it?

For your information I have had the pleasure of doing research at the national archives and so I know what their policy is.

IF a staff member at the archive gave berger the original's then that staff member was in the wrong because it states explicitly at the main desk that it is their policy to give copies only of items asked for.



[edit on 19-6-2008 by grover]

Mod Note: No more insults!
Mod Edit: Civility and Decorum are Required

[edit on 19-6-2008 by Gemwolf]

Also, the Archives' Inspector General Issued a report on the Berger crime. The following is from the Congressional Oversight Committe's website. Granted, this is a Republican Congressman's conclusion. That said, I have not seen any Democrat refute these claims:

We Will Never Know What He Took


The full extent of Berger’s document removal is not known, and never can be known. On two of Berger’s four visits to the Archives, he had access to documents which had no copy and have no inventory number. These are the office files of National Security staff, including the personal office files of Clinton and Bush anti-terrorism czar Richard Clarke. They may have been lost forever.

While the personal staff files provide the greatest opportunity for missing documents, the NSC numbered documents also present a serious problem. The NSC numbered documents are only numbered at the document level, not by page. Berger could have removed portions of NSC numbered documents and the National Archives officials would never know.

Because Berger was provided with so many original documents, there is no way to ever know if the 9/11 Commission received all required materials.

Source

Perhaps if you or anybody else is interested in the TRUTH somebody might find the Archives Inspector General's original report. I don't know if it was made public or not.

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Yep, ill admit thats pretty damn discouraging.

But I wouldnt tie Obama to the 911 coverup in anyway.

To be clear, I'm not saying Obama was INVOLVED in the cover-up.

Really? Then why title your thread Obama and the 911 Cover Up?

You are just looking for ANYTHING to smear Obama with.

It would be wonderful if you could sum up Lee Hamilton's extensive public service record by minimizing it to "he served as co chair of the 911 commission" and "worked with big business". Never mind the fact that he is one of the most experience foreign policy advisers in the government today.

Let's say Obama chose to go outside of Washington DC and pick some unknown. You would start a thread titled:

Obama Threatens USA: Inexperience in the Presidential Cabinet

I only know and can speak of my personal experience at the archives. If he was given original documents then it might be policy to do that for individuals with the level of clearence or government involvement that he held.

Either way it doesn't change the fact that this thread like all your other attack Obama threads are bullhooey and a waste of server space.

[SNIP]

It took a moment to sink in but you just took me to task for citing Berger Associates... when actually I was citing the article you are using to support your idiotic claims.

So which is it? Is the article a valid source when you use it and then an invalid source when I quote from it?

No, I wasn't criticizing the source, I was pointing out the complete illogic of citing what Berger's aides said as evidence of the truth in the matter.

For your information I have had the pleasure of doing research at the national archives and so I know what their policy is.

IF a staff member at the archive gave berger the original's then that staff member was in the wrong because it states explicitly at the main desk that it is their policy to give copies only of items asked for.

Apparently the Inspector General's report on the matter specifically stated that Berger was given originals.

And if you actually DID research you would realize that the documents are numbered at the DOCUMENT level, not the page level. The original documents Berger had access to and DIDN'T steal may still have had pages removed.

And just a guess, but I would imagine Berger's access to the top secret documents didn't come about by him walking up to the front desk like you did.

Mod Edit: Removed quoted insult

[edit on 19-6-2008 by Gemwolf]

Originally posted by TruthWithin

Really? Then why title your thread Obama and the 911 Cover Up?

You are just looking for ANYTHING to smear Obama with.

No, not at all. A SMEAR would be if I made up the facts about Lee Hamilton and Sandy Berger. I just stated the facts and pointed out that Obama hired Hamilton as an advisor, and Hamilton was hired by 9/11 criminal Berger.

It would be wonderful if you could sum up Lee Hamilton's extensive public service record by minimizing it to "he served as co chair of the 911 commission" and "worked with big business". Never mind the fact that he is one of the most experience foreign policy advisers in the government today.

Hey, it's a free country. Why don't you start your own thread telling all of us why Lee Hamilton, who now works as a lobbyist, is a great choice to give advice on U.S. foreign policy. By the way, he did NOT resign his position as a lobbyist to work for Obama. He has a direct conflict of interest.

Let's say Obama chose to go outside of Washington DC and pick some unknown. You would start a thread titled:

Obama Threatens USA: Inexperience in the Presidential Cabinet

Wrong again. Obama had an entire universe of options available for foreign policy advisors. In fact, I think Hamilton was one a panel of 16 or 17 people. Why even include him at all? He has plenty of foreign policy advisors as it is.

In fact, Hamilton's presence on the panel makes me believe that some special interest that's behind Obama "forced" Hamilton on him. Obama is neither too naive to realize Hamilton's current position with Stonebridge, nor is Obama too stupid to realize that Hamilton's association with Stonebridge would be a huge liability if it became widely known.

So the only conclusion I can make is that Hamilton was "forced" on Obama by the powers that be who got Obama this far.

Originally posted by jamie83

No, not at all. A SMEAR would be if I made up the facts about Lee Hamilton and Sandy Berger. I just stated the facts and pointed out that Obama hired Hamilton as an advisor, and Hamilton was hired by 9/11 criminal Berger.

Actually - you did make up your own facts by insinuating hamilton was covering up 9/11. If no convictions were never made, then you only have theories, which are not facts.

So the only conclusion I can make is that Hamilton was "forced" on Obama by the powers that be who got Obama this far.

First you say you deal in facts
then you claim to deal in opinions

which is it? Im confused.

More political baiting.

Jamie, First, I want to say that IMO, the quality of this thread is levels of magnitude above many of your others. So I commend you on that. Congratulation. You have done research, cited your sources and drawn a reasonably intelligent conclusion.

Having said that, I think we have to keep in mind that we do not know exactly what Berger did. I agree that he did something pretty sneaky and he was fined for it, but I don't know if we'll ever know what he did.

Also, remember that Obama may totally believe the official story of 9/11. And if he does, he doesn't know of any wrong-doing by the 9/11 Commission or Lee Hamilton.

Even though many of us here believe (know) that there was a 9/11 cover-up, there are millions of people who think we're whack jobs. And that may very well include Obama.

So, I have to do some more research on this before I decide what to think about it.

But good thread!

So now Obama has his own Haliburton?

Oh well, they're all policiticians, they're all scumbags, the real hard part is deciding who's the lesser evil. Either way it's 4 more years of the SOS.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


It doesnt matter if you believe 9/11 was a cover-up or not.
The fact is there is already a 9/11 Conspiracy forum in the ATS community.

9/11 conspiracy has nothing to do with 2008 election campaign of McCain v.s. Obama.

Yeah - he linked to sources saying who Obama picked for his advisor (Hamilton), and kudos to providing a source atleast

but the premise of this post is 9/11 conspiracy relations
it dives into the 9/11 conspiracy theory, not the 2008 campaign trail.

This is the wrong forum to post a 9/11 conspiracy related article.

Originally posted by grover
The National Archive NEVER hands out the original documents, they ALWAYS give COPIES which they ask for back.

Umm....Thats why he STOLE the originals by stuffing them in his pants. Why would he try and steal copies? That makes no sense.

Originally posted by jamie83
To be clear, I'm not saying Obama was INVOLVED in the cover-up.

Then please explain the title of this thread.

Obama just linked himself to one of the people responsible for the 9/11 cover-up by hiring Lee Hamilton. Obama could have selected ANYBODY in the world as a foreign policy advisor, and yet he chose Hamilton, who now is employed by Sandy Berger.

Yes but what you fail to mention is that Lee Hamilton is one of 40 people on the panel of which he is just meeting with. You make it sound like he was selected to be his foreign policy adviser.

Later today Obama is scheduled to gather with a a group of nearly 40 retired admirals and generals to discuss the state of the nation’s armed forces and the challenges facing the US military in hot spots around the world.

Among the names in this Senior Working Group are four Clinton Administration Cabinet members: former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Warren Christopher, former Defense Secretary William Perry, and former National Security Adviser Tony Lake.

Also included in this group are former Senators Sam Nunn, who chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee and David Boren, who chaired the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, who chaired the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Obama in search of foreign policy advisors

When you try to tell the truth, try telling the whole truth.

reply to post by jamie83

Good work jamie83!
Some people cannot handle the truth especially when it crushes their dream for the new messiah Obama.

reply to post by Hal9000


Nice Find Hal!!

second line

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Actually - you did make up your own facts by insinuating hamilton was covering up 9/11. If no convictions were never made, then you only have theories, which are not facts.

Actually, I stated directly that Berger stole documents relating to his 9/11 Commission testimony. This is covering up classified information relating to 9/11.

I did insinuate that Hamilton was easy on Berger, and stated the fact that Hamilton did nothing to admonish Berger for stealing and destroying classified documents.

First you say you deal in facts
then you claim to deal in opinions

which is it? Im confused.

More political baiting.

So is voicing an opinion now considered political baiting? Now I'm confused. What do you mean by political "baiting"?

The term baiting implies that I'm putting some sort of "bait" out there trying to trap somebody into posting replies. C'mon Andy, take some personal responsibility here. I know it's hard coming from a liberal mindset, but people are responsible for their own actions. My posts do not require you to even open them.

And it's really um.... odd... to suggest that there is something inappropriate about me giving an opinion. WTH is your logic or reasoning, if any, behind that?

reply to post by jamie83


First off, your OP doesnt insinuate an opinion
it asserts "facts"

it is an "opinion' that 9/11 was a cover-up. Not a fact.

But your "facts" are fabricated in the sense that you left out all of the information that Hal just posted right above me.

A fact based on a partial truth is not a fact at all. Since you post "half truths" and work in disinformation by trying to selectively pick which parts of news segments you like, and which parts dont, and omitting the latter, to fruther your agenda is some sly sneaky manner, you are not dealing in "facts"

Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

Source




[edit on 19-6-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]