How Sandy Berger Compromised National Security "Much More Than Originally Disclosed"
RIchard Miniter, over at PajamasMedia has made available "the report by the Inspector General’s office regarding Sandy Berger and his theft and destruction of classified national security documents."
Miniter writes,
A few questions emerge on the first reading for which answers would, we believe, be telling and valuable to the public’s understanding of the deeper roots of 9/11.
Among these are:
What was role of Omar Bashir, President of the Sudan, and his relationship to Berger and President Clinton during the days when he offered to cooperate in the capture of Osama Bin Laden?
What was in the ten to twenty pages of notes Berger is believed to have taken out of the reviewing room against regulations during his first session?
Who was the person or persons Berger contacted during the numerous “private cell phone calls” he was allowed to make during his active review of the classified documents?
Exactly what was in the documents Berger stole from the archives, some of which he has confessed to destroying?
Read Miniter's post on Berger. and
click here to download the OIG report on the Berger theft.
Also worth noting, Rep. Thomas Davis issued a statement:
“My staff’s investigation reveals that President Clinton’s former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger compromised national security much more than originally disclosed,” Davis said. “It is now also clear that Mr. Berger was willing to go to extraordinary lengths to compromise national security, apparently for his own convenience.
Posted by Matt at January 10, 2007 07:56 AM
Track
del.icio.us
digg it
IM
Facebook
Comments
The Democrats have the unique ability to personally avoid and ignore all criticism of any mistakes, yet are the first to point out and ridicule others for theirs. When I recently pointed this out on a liberal blog, my post was greeted with the following:
"All comments originating from your IP number since the blog started have been deleted, and they will continue to be deleted. Alternative viewpoints are welcome here. You are not.
Posted by: on January 9, 2007 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK"
Such a tolerant bunch.
Posted by: Cheney at January 10, 2007 09:09 AM
Security? who cares about National security when you are a Democrat and want a "department of Peace" when we get attacked or you want the police to "handle it" and sue them in court, instead of the military pounding them into a pink mist.
Joe Liberman aside
Posted by: Carl at January 10, 2007 09:35 AM
No access to classified material for three years? So he knowingly and deliberately steals and destroys original copies of classified documents to keep the public from knowing what Clinton was up to, and in three years without even fulfilling any rehabilitative requirement he can do it again. Wonderful. The system works.
Posted by: Morris at January 10, 2007 09:56 AM
Sandy stole these for his convience? He risked public disgrace and possible prison for his convience? He shared this with someone in private phone calls while immersed in doing the dirty deeds, for his convience? It makes far more sense that at least two people had serious feloneous acts to cover up. One was Sandy. The other person was ...? I believe that he did what he did to avoid prison for himself and this other person, although the other person may have had immunity. It was so amateurish that it must have been done out of panic and not by using his fine intellect. So, again I ask, what terrible secret does he share with someone else? No speculation that I have seen comes close to being a plausible motive.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon at January 10, 2007 11:03 AM
The truth is out there...
In Sandy Berger's pants.
Posted by: Leo Pusateri at January 10, 2007 11:48 AM
Just another Clintonista.
Why would Sandy Berglar risk his career and honor ....??? Was he afraid of being 'Fostered'???
And Hillary is viable because ....... ???
Posted by: LaMano at January 10, 2007 12:01 PM
This is worse than Watergate!
President Bush and Attorney Gonzalez please do something about this crook and his minions!
Posted by: semby at January 10, 2007 12:31 PM
This is worse than Watergate and where is the public outcry?
Posted by: semby at January 10, 2007 12:42 PM
Can you imagine if a republican had done this. I am sure watergate would have been mentioned a few thousand times, and about 6 separate congressional hearings would be taking place at the same time as well as indictments. But wait I forgot, sandy berger is a dem and even better, a clinton dem, so never mind.
Posted by: james allegro at January 10, 2007 01:14 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if the Main Steam Media would pay as much attention to this serious issue as they did to the gaff made by George Allen? Or the Foley affair (Pun intended)?
Posted by: BillC at January 10, 2007 02:34 PM
Order Matt and Mark's book on Amazon or Barnes and Noble
The Democrats have the unique ability to personally avoid and ignore all criticism of any mistakes, yet are the first to point out and ridicule others for theirs. When I recently pointed this out on a liberal blog, my post was greeted with the following:
"All comments originating from your IP number since the blog started have been deleted, and they will continue to be deleted. Alternative viewpoints are welcome here. You are not.
Posted by: on January 9, 2007 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK"
Such a tolerant bunch.
Security? who cares about National security when you are a Democrat and want a "department of Peace" when we get attacked or you want the police to "handle it" and sue them in court, instead of the military pounding them into a pink mist.
Joe Liberman aside
No access to classified material for three years? So he knowingly and deliberately steals and destroys original copies of classified documents to keep the public from knowing what Clinton was up to, and in three years without even fulfilling any rehabilitative requirement he can do it again. Wonderful. The system works.
Sandy stole these for his convience? He risked public disgrace and possible prison for his convience? He shared this with someone in private phone calls while immersed in doing the dirty deeds, for his convience? It makes far more sense that at least two people had serious feloneous acts to cover up. One was Sandy. The other person was ...? I believe that he did what he did to avoid prison for himself and this other person, although the other person may have had immunity. It was so amateurish that it must have been done out of panic and not by using his fine intellect. So, again I ask, what terrible secret does he share with someone else? No speculation that I have seen comes close to being a plausible motive.
The truth is out there...
In Sandy Berger's pants.
Just another Clintonista.
Why would Sandy Berglar risk his career and honor ....??? Was he afraid of being 'Fostered'???
And Hillary is viable because ....... ???
This is worse than Watergate!
President Bush and Attorney Gonzalez please do something about this crook and his minions!
This is worse than Watergate and where is the public outcry?
Can you imagine if a republican had done this. I am sure watergate would have been mentioned a few thousand times, and about 6 separate congressional hearings would be taking place at the same time as well as indictments. But wait I forgot, sandy berger is a dem and even better, a clinton dem, so never mind.
Wouldn't it be nice if the Main Steam Media would pay as much attention to this serious issue as they did to the gaff made by George Allen? Or the Foley affair (Pun intended)?