It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

POLITICS: Clinton Official Sandy Berger Removed Classified Papers

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrsdls
I find it interesting that Kerry blasted Bush about port security a few months back, it appears that Kerry got his information from Berger. No wonder, Kerry droped him like a hot potatoe. If you look hard and honestly at this whole affair it seems like Kerry was using Berger to get insider information on national security matters.


Proverbial "hit" right on the nails head. I believe this story although big now has the potential to explode into a history maker.

We'll just have to wait and see what traction the major media gets on this aspect of it.




posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I'm afraid that the major news outlets will let this slide. This morning NBC had Bergers lawyer on and he spinned it the way he wanted to. No one to give an opposing view. But what can you expect?



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Unbelievable, the democratics have did it again.

This means now, that is if you have a pulse and half a brain, the 9/11 commission report is flawed.

It was by no means an accident that these documents were removed and have since been lost. They were taken because of the value to the democratic party that they not be seen. INCREDIBLE!!!

How can you lend any credibility to a report that is missing a piece of the puzzle. It has to be assumed now that these documents incriminated the democratic party and showed the blunders of clarke, clinton, perhaps kerry.

The interesting part of all this is that sandy berger is one of the kerry teams top advisers. That also adds a new twist..

It will be interesting to see how the truth seekers and fortune tellers at ATS handle this one.. ( let me guess..........bush did it with a holographic image of berger being projected from the forehead of General Colin Powell...)



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by sniper068
It will be interesting to see how the truth seekers and fortune tellers at ATS handle this one.. ( let me guess..........bush did it with a holographic image of berger being projected from the forehead of General Colin Powell...)


He took copies. No information is gone. The 9/11 commision has said that this has no relevence. I thought it was a big deal too, until I looked into it. This happened so long ago, that the only reason to bring it up, and adding bits and pieces like stuffing things into his socks, by unnamed sources, is just election year politics.

Hey, did you hear? They found nukes in Iraq!



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:52 AM
link   
HOW THE STAFF AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES NOTICED THAT SANDY BERGER WAS STEALING DOCUMENTS:
www.washingtonpost.com...

"After Berger's previous visit, in September, Archives officials believed documents were missing. This time, they specially coded the papers to more easily tell whether some disappeared, said government officials and legal sources familiar with the case."

Essentially, they noticed that documents WERE MISSING, after his first couple of visits, and set up a coding system to keep track of anything he might be interested in. Sure enough, things began to vanish with each visit. Moral of the story: Don't try to trick librarians. They thrive on organizing information... and notice when things go missing.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 02:10 AM
link   
(note: I didn't write the following as an ATSNN news writer. It expresses personal opinions. In fact, my original post was not made to ATSNN at all... in case you have been wondering about my objectivity. It was just picked up by ATSNN. Keep that in mind if you think I've been too anti-Democratic during this story/thread... it wasn't originally meant as a journalistic ATSNN news article)

...Other moral of the story: a librarian knows that no patron repeatedly takes stuff away from the public collection on 'mistake'. This is especially so if socks and pants are involved... and repeated instances.

Third moral of the story: Anyone who is trying to pass this off to you as a minor, partisan story hasn't read the facts -- or just reads the New York Times (BTW, I like the John Kerry ad they run wih the cartoon donkey. Reminds me of 'Peanuts' somehow). In reality, Berger stole docs from the classified section of the National Archives on multiple occasions, and important docs relating to the Clinton era response to terrorism ARE STILL MISSING. This shows a habitual, continous trend of information theft on the part of the Clinton-era staff. In this instance Berger was caught... who knows what else was absconded from the official record in the years before these Eagle-eyed librarians norticed that docs were somehow vanishing everytime Berger showed up? What happened to the video that filmed Timothy McVeigh with Middle Eastern men at the OK City bombing site?



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Who wants to bet the missing documents have something to do with the Saudi Royals or Taliban?

Clinton and then Bush. Kerry really can't be WORSE can he?



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by RockerDom
Clinton and then Bush. Kerry really can't be WORSE can he?


Yes. Yes he can.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 03:11 AM
link   
The question that goes unanswered is WHY Berger pilfered the douments. The only conclusions that can be reached are:

1. They were potentially very helpful to the Republican party (unlikely)
2. They were potentially very damaging and/or incriminating to the Clinton administration (very likely).

The real answer to the question of why he took them is crucial. We cannot rely on any excuse that he gives as true. The documents likely showed vast flaws in Clinton's handling of terrorism issues.

Which, by the way, is unfortunate, but a waste of energy if all that comes out of this is more finger pointing. I hope they use any information gained to make us safer as a nation, and forget who was wrong in 1998 or whenever.




posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 03:33 AM
link   
I am a democrat and will vote for Kerry and voted for Clinton would vote for him again if he could run. All that said I'm not all that shocked by this, politicians do this kind of thing all the time both republicans and democrats. This man should be arrested and hopefully there will be a full investigation. I don't care who he is, he should never have had full access to these documents at all.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Goose, I agree with you that Berger should be lead away in handcuffs. I am concerned that Kerry recieved the data and used it. He does not have the "need to know." If Kerry recieved the data, he does not need to be president. what will stop him then? He knew he did not have access to the documents, but still used them.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Whoa... I'm *bumping* this thread simply because I'm surprised that it has slid under the radar at a place like ATS. This is a CONSPIRACY site... and yet we have a situation where only a few care about a government official deleting crucial bits of history!!!

I have to say that I'm a little disapointed. I would've thought that an act of erasing history would have caused a little more interest on a site dedicated to finding the truth...

Personally, now that I know that Berger was trying to abscond docs relating to the millenial threat... I wonder what happened to that OK City video that showed "middle eastern men" with McVeigh just before the attack... was that video carried away in someone's sock, too?

[edit on 23-7-2004 by onlyinmydreams]


Q

posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 03:45 AM
link   
I don't like Kerry, or by association anyone involved with his campaign, but I've got to hand it to them on this one--this was a grade 'A' con!


Think about it. Having legitimate access to the documents, the man snitches them out from the archives. (Or, mistakenly walks out of the archives, absent-mindedly forgetting he had them stuffed in his socks and boxers--depends on if you read The Times or not!
) Returns the documents to campaign HQ, where they are bled dry for any tactical advantage that can be gained from them. Later, he gets busted out on it, says "gee sorry, I really didn't mean to do that, and golly I guess I'll just have to resign from the campaign so I don't tarnish the reputation of my boss, who had nothing at all to do with this, by the way...". He becomes a willing scapegoat and takes his slap on the wrist.

Meanwhile, campaign HQ has already got the information contained in the documents (if not copies stashed elsewhere); and knowledge, once gained, can't be 'unlearned'. The campaign benefits from his actions, yet is not liable for them in any way. "Plausible deniability".

And we're still looking for a new director for the CIA? Just find the man who plotted up this whole scheme, and you've got yourself a prime candidate.
As a feat of sheer sneaky underhanded politicality, this was a top-notch performance!

[edit on 23-7-2004 by Q]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join