Blogcritics: Comments on Clinton/Kerry Advisor Sandy Berger Subject of FBI Probe

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 22:41:33 EDT

Proactivity will win the war on terror Only if it's directed at the terrorists rather than in executing neoconservative foreign policy.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 22:39:06 EDT

I think I started the italics inadvertently, so let's see if this stops them.

Comment by RJ

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 22:31:19 EDT

Well, leave it to CNN to be a trend-setter here... :-/

Comment by kd

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 21:23:21 EDT

"And the Conventions will wipe it off the media's radar screen" kCNN has already started the process.

Comment by RJ

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 21:19:55 EDT

Oh, well. Screw the slanted text. This won't have much impact on Kerry because he dropped Berger like a hot horse apple. Bush won't touch it because it's still being investigated. And the Conventions will wipe it off the media's radar screen.

Comment by RJ

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 21:16:28 EDT

Hmm. How about now?

Comment by RJ

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 21:15:07 EDT

Hopefully the italics are gone now...

Comment by kd

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 21:09:37 EDT

"Doesn't mean they didn't cover it. It was the top story on their news shows for several days now." Sorry, this story wasn't out "several days ago", but they had Bush's lost military records (on Clinton's watch, by the way)front page for nearly a week.hmmmm "And I don't see how the actions of Sandy Berger are related to John Kerry at all." huh? As Dan got to say before me, he was one of Kerry's TOP ADVISORS! ok, yeah, great.. Clinton's former National Security Adviser and a potential position being the same position in Kerry's cabinet! Accidently stuffing secret documents from the national archive down his pants - oops, sorry, I inadvertnaly took a couple of documents. Clumsy, 'ol me.. Even Bill Richardson Gov of NM (Clinton's Sec. of Energy & UN ambassador) is distancing himself by saying that Sandy was always sloppy.. even the Democrat's hero himself, William Jefferson Clinton is distancing himself by saying the same thing.. hmmmmm... seems this story is even too hot for even the king of smooth talk to handle. Responsibiliy is always shifting for these folks. pathetic.

Comment by Dan

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:34:10 EDT

"I don't see how the actions of Sandy Berger are related to John Kerry at all. Jenna has a much closer relation to her father than Sandy does to John." Maha Rushie (Rush Limbaugh), addressed this on his show. He uncovered several news stories where Berger is described as a "top advisor" and one where Berger was thought to be a candidate for a cabinet post if Kerry is elected. One story had him articulate the substance of the Democratic platform to the news media, something Kerry hasn't been very good at, and something an "informal advisor" probably wouldn't undertake. I think he's being distanced now for damage control.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:16:22 EDT

Funny how kCNN - Kerry Campaign News Network trys to sweep this story under the cyber rug by not having it on their homepage (AT ALL!) Doesn't mean they didn't cover it. It was the top story on their news shows for several days now. And I don't see how the actions of Sandy Berger are related to John Kerry at all. Jenna has a much closer relation to her father than Sandy does to John. People better wake up and learn that the would is a much smaller place since 9/11 and our national security is not trivial or a joke. 9/11 certainly opened my eyes. I am so serious about our security, this November I am going to be voting for the most qualified candidate with the best plan to fight terror. But Bush has many friends, associates and family members who have always helped him get a job, so I don't worry for him too much.

Comment by kd

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:50:13 EDT

Funny how kCNN - Kerry Campaign News Network trys to sweep this story under the cyber rug by not having it on their homepage (AT ALL!) but Jenna Bush gets a spot for sticking her tongue out at the prying paparazzi.. Funny how something as trivial as the presidents daughter showing a little immature behavior gets priority over issues dealing with our nations security. I seriously fear if Kerry is elected, in which case we're all in a world of danger.. People better wake up and learn that the would is a much smaller place since 9/11 and our national security is not trivial or a joke. Proactivity will win the war on terror.. Kerry will sit around and try to please everyone - getting nothing done in the process. I hope we get a chance to post our views in forums like this when the radical Muslims and eventually the Chinese, take us over (if the libs get control of our precious country).

Comment by JR

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:35:34 EDT

Actually, I think the timing would be far more convenient if the report were to be released during the Republican convention.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:07:25 EDT

Don't you think it rather convenient that the 9/11 Commission report is being released JUST in time for the Democratic National Convention? WOW, lucky timing for Democrats! Golly gee! Since Republicans are running the Commission, it's not the same thing. Neither is a leak as contrasted to a report.

Comment by David Flanagan

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 06:15:58 EDT
Par for the course for this administration, though. Hal, In Washington, there are few coincidences. I would call the timing of this leak perfect. Don't you think it rather convenient that the 9/11 Commission report is being released JUST in time for the Democratic National Convention? WOW, lucky timing for Democrats! Golly gee! As for the whole issue with Berger, it looks now as if the documents which were "disappeared" pertained to early drafts of a Richard Clarke memo to the Clinton Administration with broad critiques of how intelligence was being handled in the US and the need for serious reform. The versions which disappeared so conveniently (wow, another conveniently-timed event in Washington) had even stronger words and recommendations regarding the sharing of intelligence between agencies. If you'll remember, it was the Clinton Administration that advised the CIA and FBI that they had to go "beyond the law" in create a wall a seperation between the agencies, and that wall included information-sharing. Ultimately, the Clinton Administration ignored every one of Clarke's recommendations. Guess I understand why he'd want to keep these drafts from the 9/11 Commission. Thanks. David

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:20:48 EDT
You're mis-stating it again, David: where on earth am I trying to cover for Berger? I'm just trying to separate neocon spin from reality. But with the investigation going on since last year, isn't it funny that this story got leaked just two days before the 9/11 commission report? Like the Tom Ridge Faux-alert a couple days before the Senate report? Par for the course for this administration, though.

Comment by David Flanagan

Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:14:20 EDT
Hal, I actually read parts of the report on my own, such as the entire section dealing with Joe Wilson's accusations against President Bush, but, admittedly, I did not read it all. Eventually, as I have time, I will. Believe it or not, I find such things to be fascinating. As for this posting regardnig Berger, BIG difference in that Berger has already admitted through his lawyer to taking classified documents from a secure room in the archives. He ONLY gave them back after he was confronted with a warrant by the FBI and a former National Security Advisor knows better than to claim ignorance. As a matter of fact, Berger is claiming "sloppy behaviour," not ignorance because everyone knows that he knows better. Face it Hal, if it were Condoleezza Rice who had, for example, taken these documents, you wouldn't be attempting to cover for her. You and I know this is a bad situation for Berger and will have an effect on anyone he associates with, including Clinton and Kerry. Furthermore, this story is not going away. By the way, the AP announced today that Berger has stepped down as one of Kerry's advisors. Thanks, David

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:06:13 EDT
And the fact that an investigation was initiated in the first place does not mean there was any crime in the first place. Your logic works both ways. Of course, David, but I wish you had thought of that before posting the Stepford-neo line on the investigation of Berger. As far as the report goes, I also wish you would personally read it - all of it - and come to your own conclusions rather than just passing on biased snippets from right wing rags. Keeping you straight on all the facts is just getting to be too much work.

Comment by David Flanagan

Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:31:01 EDT
Hal, And the fact that an investigation was initiated in the first place does not mean there was any crime in the first place. Your logic works both ways. BTW - A couple of telling quotes from the Senate Select Committe on Intelligence's report:
At the time the former ambassador traveled to Niger, the Intelligence Community did not have in its possession any actual documents on the alleged Niger-Iraq uranium deal, only second hand reporting of the deal. The former ambassador's comments to reporters . . . could not have been based on the former ambassador's actual experiences because the Intelligence Community did not have the documents at the time of the ambassador's trip.
This report comment was in response to Wilson's claim that he had seen what he claimed to documents forged to make it look as if Saddam was seeking uranium in Niger. The committee report goes on to say:
On at least two occasions [Wilson] admitted that he had no direct knowledge to support some of his claims and that he was drawing on either unrelated past experiences or no information at all. For example, when asked how he "knew" that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved "a little literary flair."
And here are the conclusions of Senator Pat Roberts in the report:
During Mr. Wilson's media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television shows including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had "debunked" the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. As discussed in the Niger section of the report, not only did he NOT "debunk" the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true. I believed very strongly that it was important for the Committee to conclude publicly that many of the statements made by Ambassador Wilson were not only incorrect, but had no basis in fact...
Thanks. David

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:35:57 EDT
My bet is that the investigation will soon conclude with the finding that there is no fault to the Administration... That's certainly likely, given how this administration operates. That will not mean that no crime was committed.

Comment by David Flanagan

Tue, 20 Jul 2004 13:22:26 EDT
There is no question about that crime I disagree with you on this obviously. My bet is that the investigation will soon conclude with the finding that there is no fault to the Administration based on this evidence presented last week by the Senate Intelligence committee. If I'm wrong, you will, of course, have the right to tell me, "I told you so." Thanks :-) David

Comment by JR

Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:32:15 EDT
David Flanagan: The entire Plame investigation is now in question... According to you and what Justice Department?

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Tue, 20 Jul 2004 10:11:13 EDT
The entire Plame investigation is now in question due to the fact that Joe Wilson lied in saying that his wife never recommended him for the assignment when the opposite was true. I'm glad to see that you're not repeating the lie that Wilson recanted about Bush lying, but nothing that has come up about him erases the fact that there's a felon in the White House who put Wilson's wife at risk. There is no question about that crime nor that investigation, except some muddling being attempted by neocons and their fellow-travelers. You may spin this any way you like, Hal, but the guy is in serious trouble (notice that he's speaking now through his lawyer), and this story is not going to go away any time soon. Sorry, David, but I'm just trying to counteract some of your spin. The tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth and echoes of "oh, woe is me, this is such a bad, bad thing" seems insincere. And the right-wing opinion from the right-wing OpinonJournal doesn't add anything to the discussion.

Comment by David Flanagan

Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:51:44 EDT
Hal, Here is another article for your perusal regarding the Plame investigation:
Mr. Wilson's Defense Why the Plame special prosecutor should close up shop. Tuesday, July 20, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT After U.S. and British intelligence reports exposed his falsehoods in the last 10 days, Joe Wilson is finally defending himself. We're therefore glad to return to this story one more time, because there are some larger lessons here about the law, and for the Beltway media and Bush White House. Mr. Wilson's defense, in essence, is that the "Republican-written" Senate Intelligence Committee report is a partisan hatchet job. We could forgive people for being taken in by this, considering the way the Committee's ranking Democrat, Jay Rockefeller, has been spinning it over the past week. But the fact is that the three most damning conclusions are contained not in Chairman Pat Roberts's "Additional Views," but in the main body of the report approved by Mr. Rockefeller and seven other Democrats. MORE...
Thanks David

Comment by David Flanagan

Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:27:00 EDT
The Washington Post offers some coverage of this investigation, though, they are certainly not giving it front-page coverage.
The missing copies, according to Breuer and their author, Richard A. Clarke, the counterterrorism chief in the Clinton administration and early in President Bush's administration, were versions of after-action reports recommending changes following threats of terrorism as 1999 turned to 2000. Clarke said he prepared about two dozen ideas for countering terrorist threats. The recommendations were circulated among Cabinet agencies, and various versions of the memo contained additions and refinements, Clarke said last night. Breuer said that Clarke had prepared a "tough review" and that the document was something of a critical assessment of what agencies did well and what they failed to do in the face of the millennium threat.
Imagine if Condolleezza Rice were under investigation for this kind of thing, every mainstream news outlet in the world would be screaming "CONDOLEEZZA RICE STEALS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS!!!!!!!" Does the mainstream media have a liberal bias? Naaaaaahhhhh! David

Comment by David Flanagan

Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:10:19 EDT
do you have an update on the investigation into the White House leak of Plame's name Hal, The entire Plame investigation is now in question due to the fact that Joe Wilson lied in saying that his wife never recommended him for the assignment when the opposite was true. Because Valerie recommended her husband, it gives credence to Novak's claim that the administration officials were not "outing" her but were instead calling into question Mr. Wilson's credibility. Really, Joe Wilson outed himself and his wife by going public with his accusations against the President; accusations which now seem to be completely wrong. As for Sandy Berger, if you think stuffing classified notes down your pants is small stuff, then you need to review some of the federal laws regulating the handling of classified documents. By stuffing those notes in his pants, Berger was saying outright that he knew that what he was doing was wrong. Berger has made two public admissions so far, both are highly damning: 1) He "inadvertently" placed classified TERRORISM notes and documents in his briefcase and removed them from a secure area. I question the inadvertent because he archive aids reported his suspicious behaviour and the FBI began to investigate. 2) He LOST some of the copies of the documents that he removed from the archives. So, in the relatively short time between "inadvertantly" removing documents from the archives and the FBI searching his home, he LOST copies of highly classified terrorism documents. He LOST HIGHLY CLASSIFIED TERRORISM DOCUMENTS. Can I stress the import of this admission any more? Where did those copies go? Who has them? What information may now be in the hands of those who are not authorized to view such documents? Did he remove them accidentally, as he claims, or did he hope to cover for his old boss (Clinton), help his new boss (Kerry), or hurt the current administration (Bush). You may spin this any way you like, Hal, but the guy is in serious trouble (notice that he's speaking now through his lawyer), and this story is not going to go away any time soon. Thanks. David