He put docs in his socks.....

[Bong30]

The left wing media has missed this.... why?

The Current Crisis
Berger Again
By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
Published 1/11/2007 12:08:16 AM
WASHINGTON -- While reviewing national security documents from the Clinton Administration in preparation for his appearance before the 9/11 Commission hearings, the Clinton administration's former national security adviser, Mr. Samuel R. Berger, was observed stuffing them in his socks by employees at the National Archives. Soon he was accused of taking these documents -- memos, draft documents, e-mails, that sort of thing -- from the Archives in breach of the law, and he was duly charged. All of this took place a couple of years ago, and those of us who had followed the Clinton high jinks with more diligence than the rest of the press had a good laugh. Once again we were vindicated and the rest of the press went into another episode of disappointment. As throughout the 1990s, the Best and the Brightest of the Clinton Saga had been caught flagrante delicto -- and let me add flagrante hilarious. Berger really did pack the documents in his socks.
Yet there was a debate among us Clinton sleuths that now has been settled. After Berger pleaded guilty, many of us accepted his explanation, namely, that he was simply too lazy to read through all the material in the uncomfortable quarters made available to him at the Archives. He wanted to read them at home in the presence of loved ones, the family cat, and Fleetwood Mac on the sound system. He had grimmer critics with a darker reading. They believed that in the aftermath of 9/11 historians were going to be more exacting in their readings of the Clinton record on terror and if White House documents showed laxity the historians would report it. Thus these Clinton sleuths argued that Berger was making off with embarrassing documents to destroy or perhaps to revise.

We moderates said nonsense. That would be a brazen breach of ethics. Moreover, it would be very risky. Surely the Archives would not let Berger see original documents or documents that had not yet been catalogued. Anything he stole or disfigured would have a backup document. How naive we were. Thanks to a Congressional report released this week, we now know that Berger was allowed to look over (and quite likely filch) files of materials from the Clinton administration that had yet to be archived and were very germane to how historians will judge him and his boss.

According to the Washington Post, the Congressional report "said Berger took a special interest during his early visits [to the Archives] in files from the office of former White House counterterrorism official Richard A. Clarke, which included uninventoried draft documents, memos, e-mail messages and hand-written notes." "Had Berger removed papers," the report notes, "...it would be almost impossible for Archives staff to know."

In other words, the National Archives blundered badly when it gave Berger access to documents that were unrecorded and uncopied. Berger, an admitted liar, has almost certainly lied about what he did with these documents. And historians will probably never know what notations they contained or even if they contained major revelations about the Clinton administration's assessment and treatment of terrorists in the years before 9/11.

What we do know is that the Clinton sleuths now have still more evidence of the Clinton administration's abuse of power and fundamental lawlessness. The administration's public record is replete with the Clintons' obstructing investigations by withholding documents. Just recall Hillary's subpoenaed billing records from the Rose Law Firm that were kept for months from the Independent Counsel before they appeared magically in her living quarters. Or remember when her aides illegally entered the just deceased Vince Foster's White House office to carry off materials that only law enforcement officials should have seen.

The Democrats now repine over a Republican "Culture of Corruption." Well, it did not start with the Republicans. I can find no historic parallel for what Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser Berger did at the National Archives, and he got off with a misdemeanor. From this week's Congressional Report it appears to me that he stole documents, possibly destroyed them, and apparently corrupted Archives officials and officials in the Justice Department. Cultures of corruption have a way of spreading. When I read of Senator Hillary Clinton's run for the White House I wonder, do the Democrats want to go through this degraded debate all over again?


R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator, a contributing editor to the New York Sun, and an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute. His most recent book is Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House (Regnery Publishing).


you dumb libs missed this why?

Bong30 Reviewed by Bong30 on 01-12-2007. He put docs in his socks..... The left wing media has missed this.... why? The Current Crisis Berger Again By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. Published 1/11/2007 12:08:16 AM WASHINGTON -- While reviewing national security documents from the Clinton Administration in preparation for his appearance before the 9/11 Commission hearings, the Clinton administration's former national security adviser, Mr. Samuel R. Berger, was observed stuffing them in his socks by employees at the National Archives. Soon he was accused of taking Rating: 5

[Bong30]

You Libs and the left leaning media dont say shit.......

why would he steal docs? Clinton got somthing to hide?

if this was a republican...it would be DOC GATE.......


everyone say DOUBLE STANDARD......

[medicinal]

you dumb libs missed this why?
__________________
I have found that when a person resorts to name calling, he basically has nothing of substance to say, To prove your own ignorance is to label others ignorant. By calling people Idiots and fags, you are setting yourself up for a mirror like image. Most of us grew out of this juvenile behavior in grade school, but feel free to exercise your free speech priveledges. Just be aware that you are not doing yourself or anyone else on this site any good by name calling. It only promotes anger and hatred and clouds the real nexus of the discussion!

[Bong30]

Med the whole left leaning media swept it under the rug..... WHY?


Cause the have an agenda?

could you imagine that if it was a repub?

im serious DOC GATE... front page all the papers ( most are left leaning)

[birdgirl73]

OK, I'll be happy to submit to an IQ test to anyone who wants to characterize me as a "dumb" lib. That is a standing offer for anyone who can only characterize people with opposing viewpoints as dumb. Prepare to have your hair blown back by the test scores, by the way.

As far as the Sandy Berger-hiding-documents story, that's not been swept under the rug at all. I've read about it four times. Heard it on news magazine shows twice. Heard it twice on Sunday public affairs programming, too. It's not hidden news. It's a fairly well-known story, although the detail about socks is a new twist to it. You've gotta start reading more. . . .

[Bong30]

So you are saying that there is no double standard...in the media

what if it was a republican?

check for spelling and grammer errors.....




I aint no literate ya Know....



what was he Taking them? why would he take it? why does he have a securtity clearance again......all good questions that will never be asked.

[Delta9 UK]

I edited this because these threads are too stupid to waste my time on

[Bong30]

you can be smart and hurt friends in Public, witch makes you very dumb....


Listen BG... praise in public, punish in private.......Im too dumb right????


I aint no literate..................right?

[Matt the Funk]

Why ask questions? Maybe he wants to know something. Classifying libs as dumb is fucked up and ignorant. If you want this stuff to be brought up then you should do it. Most people don't accept there faults, libs are not different. People make mistakes.

[Bong30]

I edited this because these threads are too stupid to waste my time on

you dont have an argument is what you ment to say.....

what about the double standard?