Clinton Aide Took Classified Material for 9/11 report prep

Thanks Bee, none other than Marxist-Leninist David Gergen says there is something suspicious about this leak and it's timing. Is the Grand Jury ready to indict in the Plame case? Why is Bush stonewalling this story?

Yes... Let's look into The Plame case...
<demonic laughter inserted here>

Joe Wilson is a liar, much like Sandy Berger...

There may be an indictment, and if there is, it will likely be Joe Wilson, the big liar, who is indicted...

The `Plame' truth: That Joe Wilson lied
By Boston Herald Editorial Staff
Sunday, July 18, 2004

It's a good thing former Ambassador Joseph Wilson took advantage of his 15 minutes of fame and already published his book bashing President Bush [related, bio], ironically entitled the ``Politics of Truth.''

It's not the best marketing strategy to have two governments essentially call the author a liar.

The Senate Intelligence Committee report released last week about intelligence missteps leading up to the war in Iraq were crystal clear about Wilson's falsehoods.

Wilson's insistence that his wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame, had nothing to do with his selection to lead a pre-Iraq war mission to Niger is a flat-out lie. She's the one who suggested Wilson in the first place, according to documents unearthed by the congressional committee.

Aside from revealing Wilson as the partisan phony he is, this new revelation puts in context why someone in the White House might have identified Plame to columnist Robert Novak in the first place. Wilson charged it was an act of political revenge because he was critical of President Bush's use of the pre-war intelligence. In fact, it is relevant to Wilson's credibility to understand why and how he was selected for the mission.

More importantly, both the British and Senate investigations found the raison d'etre for Wilson's presence on the national stage is false, too.


Remember those much-debated 16 lines in last year's State of the Union address? In a New York Times column, Wilson claimed Bush ``twisted intelligence'' by arguing Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Niger. Wilson's investigation, he insisted, found no basis for it.

We know now that truth is a relative thing to this former ambassador. And it turns out, according to both countries' reports on pre-war intelligence failures, Bush's assertion was absolutely correct.

Wilson's report provided ``some confirmation of foreign government service reporting'' about Iraq's interest in getting uranimum from Niger, according to the Senate. British investigators found Wilson's assertion that the report was based solely on forged documents also untrue. The substantiation for the British intelligence report on Niger came from ``several different sources.''

The political damage to Bush caused by Wilson's lies can't be undone. But at least now he has been undone by them, too.
--------
Thank goodness for the Commissions. You wanted the truth, and here it is. Berger swiped pertinent documents, and Joe Wilson LIED about his wife, his appointment, and Niger. Bush is vindicated.

Hmmm - the stories certainly differ in emphasis and so on - and it may well be that Bush and co. are pushing this one right now for election reasons - but, I think the likelihood remains that, had it been a Bush aide who was reported to have done this, that anti-Bush folk here would have been shouting about it from the rooftops - just as the Bush folk are now.

Neither side shouting means a fig as to whether the fella meant to affect the investigation, or not, of course.

October 2nd? Today's what... July 20th? Why is this suddenly news? Doesn't anyone else this it surprising that after Berger absconded with a copy of this report, the Archives staff gave him another copy. What? Didn't they know he was a DEMOCRAT???


Despite demonic laughter, there is another side to the Joe Wilson story. Check out CBS and The Nation: Bashing Joe Wilson - July 20, 2004.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/20/opinion/main630711.shtml

I don't know much of anything about the CIA, yellow-cake uranium, Niger, or D.C. politics. Still, it does seem very odd that anyone would consider it more important to point to the possibility that Joe Wilson, an acknowledged expert with many ties to Africa, might need to lie about his wife's recommendation for getting this particular job (checking Niger for sales of yellowcake uranium)... when the real story is who decided to "out" Joe Wilson's wife as a CIA operative.



Identifying a CIA agent endangers the agent, her contacts and her work. That act was a nasty, and may I say particularly unpatriotic, felony.

Identifying a CIA agent endangers the agent, her contacts and her work. That act was a nasty, and may I say particularly unpatriotic, felony.
------------
Not if they thought she was a desk jockey, or some known administrative personnel--instead of a spy.

That she worked there was common knowledge--Novak would have never used her name if he'd known she was a spy.

Novak used her name, because the story is WILSON LIED AND SAID HIS WIFE DIDN'T RECOMMEND HIM-- He was mad, because it was discovered that she did.

Lots of people work at the CIA, and they aren't spies. Novak didn't out her as a spy, but as an employee, who used her inside status to get her husband the assignment. Wilson's bluster is what outed her as a spy.

Wilson is a proven liar, and "his reasoning" was proven wrong about the yellowcake. Bush was correct.

Clinton says Berger documents furor is just politics
CLINTON SAYS BERGER-DOCUMENTS FUROR IS JUST POLITICS: 'WE WERE ALL LAUGHING ABOUT IT'
Tue Jul 20 2004 20:54:50 ET Drudge Report

Former president Bill Clinton defends his embattled national security advisor as a man who "always got things right," even if his desk was a mess.

"We were all laughing about it," Clinton said about the investigation into Sandy Berger for taking classified terrorism documents from the National Archives. "People who don't know him might find it hard to believe. But ... all of us who've been in his office have always found him buried beneath papers."

DRUDGE has learned: In an interview set for publication Wednesday in the DENVER POST, Clinton questions the timing of the Berger flap less than a week before the Democratic National Convention and two days before a presidential commission is slated to release its final report on the Bush administration's handling of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Clinton tells the POST he has known about the federal probe of Berger's actions for several months, calling the news a "non-story."

"I wish I knew who leaked it. It's interesting timing," he added.

"I feel terrible for Sandy. But I just believe his explanation because I know how much he cared about this ... terrorism business," Clinton said, describing his former security advisor as a "workaholic" who has "always been up to his ears in papers."

The Boston herald is admittedly a tabloid, Sofia.

And, Clinton is a such a reliable liar. Laughing about "misplaced" classified documents regarding this country's security is funny...? Maybe to Democrats. You'll be seeing that quote again, I'm betting...

Suzy--

Every major news outlet is carrying both stories. Do you deny either of them?

Nope. I don't know what to think yet. However, you posted a story from the Herald. I thought you might like to know that it's not a paper that many take seriously. It's very sensationalistic. The Herald gave up the premise of being a contender awhile back. It's about two steps up from the National Enquirer. I think it's important to know that about a "news source", don't you?
I will need to hear from more sources and analyze them before I figure out what seems most likely. I will be pretty pissed if it turns out that this was a conspiracy of witholding information to make bush look even worse than he really is, because I believe in fair play and I don't appreciate being jerked around for political purposes.
I guess it may turn out that Bush's flip-flop on the commission may be one we can actually be thankful for, if we get the truth for a change. None of this makes Bush looks better to me, but it does make others look worse. That's probably the best you're gonna get! There's too much water under that bridge.

I'll grant the timing of the eake is "intersting", and in and of itself calls for some skepticism. However, baving had occasion, and approipriate clearances, in the past to handle "sensitive" documents, I simply cannot buy the "didn't do it on purpose" defemse. Without getting imto a whole lotta boring detail, one signs in to a secure document archive, amd in so doing affirms one is aware of the associated requirements and proscriptions. One of those proscriptions is that no documentation, original, copy, or your own notes, leaves the secure area without clearance. None. Nada. Nothing. Zilch. Never. Period. That's pretty much rule # 1, and all other rules pretty much amount to "Refer to rule # 1".

Sandy had decades of right-there, hands-on experience with "sensaitive material". If the allegations that he so much was in possession of secure documents, or notes pertaining thereto, without specific appropriate clearance, document-by-document, he is in violation of several Federal Laws, violation of any of which is a felony. "Oops ... sorry. Oh, well, no harm done; it was only a silly screwup" just don't cut it. Merely being in unauthorized possession of clasified material is a crime. If berger in fact deliberatly concealed classified documents in order to transpot them beyoud a secure perimeter, he would be, particularly considering his background iin proper protocols not merely a criminal, but a very danferous criminal.

Clinton must have some very deep pockets--
How else can he get so many Fall Guys to take dives for him?

The documents Berger stole, he stole right before the 911 Commission could get a look at them, and he hasn't returned them. He probably shredded them, and I bet they gave glaring evidence of Clinton's culpability with Bin Laden and 911.

BBB asked--
Can anyone really believe that either Berger or his attorney would be stupid enough to make such a statement? Especially since Berger has not been formally interviewed by the government's attornies.
Yes, he did say it. It is in MSNBC's article. He put this nation's classified documents in his pants (fact)--to make sure he got them out of there, so the Commission would never see them. (opinion)
Can anyone really believe that Berger would be stupid enough to hide documents in his clothes?
By his own admission, he was stupid enough.
Can anyone really believe that intelligent readers would believe what FOX News claims?
Only those who believed FOX got the story first. Others can now find it in other publications, including MSNBC.
Can anyone really believe that if there was solid evidence that Berger hid documents in his clothes that the Times and the Post would not have included such a big story in their reports?
Believe it. They are always sluggish or absent in reporting stories that show Democrats in a negative light. It wastes all of their donations to the Democrat party.

Looks like one more FOB will be doing jail time. They've convened a Grand Jury--and Berger is the subject of a criminal investigation.

I don't think this 'timing of the leak' spin is going to cut any mustard with the Grand Jury. Lame Dem spin--even if it *was* leaked on purpose--he still did it.

I think he stole the original and the copies of two or three pages. (According to a couple of sources, not yet widely sourced.)

What would that say to you? That would obviously be intentional. And, it would point to incriminating evidence, deliberately hidden from the Commission on 911...

What Grand Jury?

Ooh, that Clinton is so powerful! Talk about conspiracy theorists! Right, Sofia, I'm sure that Berger still takes orders from Clinton! That makes all the sense in the world! How about you just follow the story before you develop your wild theories?

If you don't believe this timing was to take away the focus of the 9.11 commission report then you are a Bush supporter through and through.


Did you hear that?

Sounded a bit like "baaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaaa"

Anyway

Even some conservative pundits are asking questions about the timing.

My question is this.

If THOSE PEOPLE seen a man stuffing documents in his socks and down his pants why didn't the stop him? Isn't it their job to prevent theft? Why are they there if not to prevent this? So why weren't any of these people FIRED for allowing him to take all these classified documents out of a secure location?

I'd like to see which "news" agency first brought up the socks. It wasn't out there before Monday and now there are piles of this "scooop" copied and recopied. There are even some news sites claiming that Berger admitted putting things in his socks.

Now that really would be something, wouldn't it?

On the other hand, if it is a lie... then I ask, who started it and why? And also, who would willingly support a political culture that thrives on such stupid sophomoric lies? How many times does a lie need to be repeated before it becomes common knowledge?

I feel sorry for Republicans... look at what you've become.

What have republicans become?

This is really amazing to me. Berger, a Clinton aide and Kerry aide gets caught stealing and the republicans are the bad guys because of it

How fascinating that is!

"Caught Stealing?" Can you even get the story right?