Article

2004-07-22 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by .com 2004-07-22 1:56:26 AM|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 It's gotta be the margin notes and editing.

Clarke, who wrote the report, worked under Berger. So it's Sandy's requested changes reflected in the various draft copies, which is what he was apparently after.

Plus - You don't risk something like that for anybody else. He was trying to cover his own ass, I'd lay money on it.

Makes you wonder what changes he requested, huh?

Posted by mojo 2004-07-22 2:14:40 AM|| 2004-07-22 2:14:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Much more on Sandy Bergler... just read and scroll down...

Alternate images, courtesy of Blogs of War:
Sandy Berger's pants
His Dockers
And My Favorite

So far, I've yet to find any photoshopped socks images... but I'm on it...

Posted by .com 2004-07-22 2:34:55 AM|| 2004-07-22 2:34:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I'd like to hear from the security support people who ordinarily train White House staff on proper security. Someone had to train Sandy originally, and I suspect (don't know) that when he became the NSA, some tech-type person reviewed with him -- again -- the basic do's and don'ts of handling codeword documents.

I'd like that security tech person to tell us that he did indeed train Mr. Berger properly, just so as to remove any potential 'excuse' from the table.

Posted by Steve White 2004-07-22 2:35:21 AM|| 2004-07-22 2:35:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 What gets my goat is that the media colludes with the democrats in NOT focusing on the ESPIONAGE of Berger, but on the "Republican leak" of the information. Shit, I'm glad whoever leaked it, leaked it. I want to know shit like this, as do most Americans. It's NOT a leak to pass on information you've learned. But those goddamn democrats will try everything they can, (with the help of the media), to discredit the Bush administration and Republicans in general. Nevermind that berger committed espionage.....and I'm sure that if the documents he stole were useful to them, the chinese would be able to purchase them from him.

Posted by Halfass Pete 2004-07-22 2:41:08 AM|| 2004-07-22 2:41:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Stay on target. Encourage your representative to stay on target. The only questions that matter: "What did he take?" and "Why did he take them?"

I'm speculating this: the notes show that Clinton Knew that al-Qaeda was in America already.

Posted by eLarson 2004-07-22 8:54:07 AM|| 2004-07-22 8:54:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 dot com - the WaPo is still pretty strongly pro-dem, but also asserts its own (relatively hawkish, and pro democracy promotion) line on foreign policy. If WaPo is harder on Berger than the NYT, etc, my gut would be that theyre trying to strengthen a COMPETING foreign policy advisor in the Dem camp - probably Richard Holbrooke I think, who is perceived as more tough minded (though not by you, Im sure :) ) than many others in the Dem FP establishment.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-22 9:04:09 AM|| 2004-07-22 9:04:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 I'm deeply unhappy and angry about Berger's actions, but HaPete is way off base here. Berger did not commit espionage and it is NOT helpful to the country to throw this sort of irresponsible language around.

I'm a strong supporter of Bush in the GWOT, but ya'll better be careful about exploiting this situation for short-term political ends. Berger had his faults and limitations, he also served in a really grueling and high pressure job for 8 years.

Do you WANT to make it so unattractive for people to take that job that no decent human being will want it? That's what you'll get if you go beyond what this incident demands and use it for character assassination.

Kid: Aww, Mom ... all the OTHER kids get to run smear campaigns.

Mom: So if they want to jump off of bridges you'll do it too? No kid of mine is going to go out there and help run this country into the ground ....

Posted by too true 2004-07-22 9:08:50 AM|| 2004-07-22 9:08:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 too true says:

Berger had his faults and limitations, he also served in a really grueling and high pressure job for 8 years.

Tough luck. No one forced him into his job. He chose to do so. Or rather his ego pushed him to seek it out. No way too true. That is BS.

Do you WANT to make it so unattractive for people to take that job that no decent human being will want it? That's what you'll get if you go beyond what this incident demands and use it for character assassination.

Too bad. This man betrayed his country by meddling with an alleged investigation into the cause of national nightmare. There is no excuse for his actions. None. It is not "character assassination" to report that he stole classified documents. Period. You are wrong.

Posted by Dragon Fly 2004-07-22 9:15:45 AM|| 2004-07-22 9:15:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 I get the feeling he was outed by the Dems from what I read. It's being spun by the "media" as being done by the republicans which is crap because they gain nothing by this.

Posted by FlameBait93268 2004-07-22 9:20:37 AM|| 2004-07-22 9:20:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Sandy Bergler wasn't NSA for 8 years.
He only served for 4.
And I think they've caught him red-handed breaking the law.
I want to see him do jail time, after he tells the American people what he destroyed!

Posted by Jen 2004-07-22 9:21:06 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-22 9:21:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Gee whiz, what's a few memos after all these are the people who sold out missile and nuclear secrets to the Chinese!

Berger should be fitted for an orange jump suit and locked away for a very long time. The same goes for his former boss, but I know that'll never happen.

Posted by Douglas De Bono 2004-07-22 9:22:52 AM|| [http://www.douglasdebono.com] 2004-07-22 9:22:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 too true - it has nothing to with politics..this guy broke the law, plain and simple. why shoud he be immune? now if this was guy was part of Bush's staff the media would be flamming with headlines of BERGERGATE

but he is a dem and the media is using kid gloves.

Posted by Dan 2004-07-22 11:17:31 AM|| 2004-07-22 11:17:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Wen Ho Lee. Sandy, you were in the White House when the order was issued to get Mr. Lee. How about its your turn to dance. Or do members of your inner party enjoy a different standard than the common folk?

Posted by Don 2004-07-22 11:30:05 AM|| 2004-07-22 11:30:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Too true:

I guess you've never been in a position of trust, so don't understand how we take this. Whether or not his actions were legally treason, he betrayed us. He had a much higher clearance than I and did things I would never even think about doing.

If I did that (and I work with stuff way lower classification) once, I would be out of a job, probably lose My clearance, and possibly be prosecuted and convicted of a crime.

If I did it a second time, I would go to prison, and never get any kind of clearance ever again. If I did it a third time, well, there wouldn't be a third time, since no would put Me in a position of trust.

This guy did is five times. If Bergler walks, can you understand how corrosive that is to security awareness to everyone? Several people here at work are already saying that some low-level guy will become a scapegoat while this slimeball gets off. And then the next time one of us peasants makes an "honest mistake," he will have the book thrown at him to show that we are "serious" about security. Sure.

Yes, I'd like to punch him in the nose.

Posted by Jackal 2004-07-22 1:02:36 PM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2004-07-22 1:02:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Too true: I guess you've never been in a position of trust, so don't understand how we take this

Let's see .... I worked for the Joint Chief of Staff's National Command and Control Center and my significant other spent many years in the black world.

Nope, I guess I don't have a clue about security.

I specifically objected to the use of the word "espionage". It's precisely because I know a number of CIA and other national security people first hand that I want words like this to be used carefully.

And I never said Berger should get off. I said that we all have a stake in using words carefully

Posted by too true 2004-07-22 1:26:00 PM|| 2004-07-22 1:26:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 This man betrayed his country by meddling with an alleged investigation into the cause of national nightmare. There is no excuse for his actions. None. It is not "character assassination" to report that he stole classified documents. Period. You are wrong.

Strong words, "betrayed his country". I don't see that at this point, nor do I see that he meddled so much as that he likely was trying to cover his very exposed ass.

Look, guys - I sleep with someone who for years would go on trips to I-never-knew-where to do I-never-knew-what-at-the-time-and-to-some-degree-still-don't. So don't start lecturing me on how important security is --- or on what betraying one's country could look like.

The first issue here is the political aspect: the likelihood that this guy was at the least, very concerned about those memos and how others might read them.

The larger issue it seems to me is this:

Berger's really really bad judgement, combined with Clinton laughing it off, and with Wilson's lies, and Clarke's political granstanding in front of the 9/11 commission shows that the Democratic party cannot be trusted with national defense right now.

Stay on target with that message. If you claim more about Berger's actions than is warranted -- if you use words like "espionage" and "betrayal" -- you will lose a lot of centrist voters like me, people who care deeply about our country but who are already more than a little wary about the "nuke 'em till they glow" attitudes floating about on places like RB.

Okay, Berger doesn't have much to do w/ nukes ... I threw that in, but for a reason. Some of us here have first hand knowledge about nuclear weapons, as it turns out. We don't think they're evil -- but it's my guess that like me, most of those with actual experience don't talk lightly about their use (nuke Mecca). Maybe that's because we know exactly what their use would entail. I, at least, get turned off really fast by idiots on the right as well as on the left who indulge themselves in extreme talk about difficult matters.

If you want voters to understand the ambiguities inherent, say, in the intel re: Iraq pre-war, you'd better show you will acknowledge ambiguities in other matters too. Berger was an idiot and I'm furious about his actions because they *potentially* compromised critical security information. But until I learn that he gave that info way or that it found its way into the wrong hands, words like "espionage" and "betrayal" are simply not warranted IMNSHO.

If you want Bush to win in November, if you want the public to catch on to what is really happening, don't overstate your case. Set the facts out and let people see the truth as it is.

Posted by too true 2004-07-22 1:45:00 PM|| 2004-07-22 1:45:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Jackal, Too True, thanks for your comments, both of you have helped me on this. You're both on the same team, by the way.

Posted by Steve White 2004-07-22 1:50:50 PM|| 2004-07-22 1:50:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 too true ...I almost agree with you this time around. I would say that a man who is either covering his craven a%^, or someone elses, and in so doing removes classified information comes really, really, really close to betraying his country. How you ask? I really hope you do not have to ask.

Now, I do agree that we should, "Stay on target with that message." It has its own legs and will swiftly be taken for a walk down the halls of justice.

Posted by Dragon Fly 2004-07-22 1:54:55 PM|| 2004-07-22 1:54:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 too true, while I don't sleep with a spook or Special Forces, I have every right to comment because I pay Sandy Bergler's salary with my taxes and if any of our enemies are able to nuke us, I could be killed, too!
"Berger doesn't have much to do with nukes..."--That's the problem!
As NSA, that was his job!!
Berger already had a track record of loose security during Clintoon's second term because he was a "made man" of Loral and the Chicoms.
Lo and behold, the Chinese are able to launch missiles just fine after 1996, whereas before they'd been trying without success for years.
And they happened to be among the biggest contributors to the
DNC and the Clinton Administration.
Los Alamos nuke labs are shut down right now because of leaks and a lot of their leaky security problems started with Bergler , Clinton and Co.
I assert that there's every reason to believe that Berger went in to the Archives to grab and destroy docs that would show that Clinton did nothing to stop OBL and AQ on his watch.
9/11 will always be Clinton's legacy, but no more so now that this incident with Berger stealing and destroying intell docs has come to light!
Sandy was stealing them for Clinton. Both of them.

And it's too bad if Right Wing rhetoric makes you sick, but we just happen to be right about 99% of the time.

Posted by Jen 2004-07-22 2:12:21 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-22 2:12:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 LH - Thanks for the insights regards WaPo. Perhaps it's just which of the barn's inhabitants are assigned WoT stories (our focus), lol!

Excellent thread, folks. I don't pretend to know the why, but the facts are quite damning. I don't give a tinker's damn for the political shenanigans, such as who leaked the investigation. I do care about our national security. The Clinton Admin was "sloppy" in the most criminal manner and with the most sensitive info we have. To say it's appalling barely covers my contempt for their actions. Bill's laughing-boy routine is an excellent charactization of the entire 8 years. Berger's arrogance fits right in. We won't see justice done, IMHO. It's spot-on that the Donks can't be trusted to hold office.

Posted by .com 2004-07-22 2:30:24 PM|| 2004-07-22 2:30:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 And it's too bad if Right Wing rhetoric makes you sick, but we just happen to be right about 99% of the time.

Jen, you are full of bullshit most of the time -- including when you take positions that in general I agree with. You enjoy trolling and doing the Coulter schtick.

Go for it, if that's your choice -- but alas it does mean you don't carry much credibility with those of us who have some idea of things from the inside.

And I'm more than aware of tech transfer issues and the Chinese threat.

Now, about specifics: there is no evidence that Berger tried to "grab and destroy docs that would show that Clinton did nothing to stop OBL and AQ on his watch." I think the Clinton administration's policies were dangerously weak -- but in point of fact, there WERE Islamacist attacks that were stopped, on 12/31/1999 and other dates as well. To what degree that was due to administration policies is open to debate, but stopped they were.

Stick to the facts, they last longer under scrutiny. There are plenty of factual criticisms to make of the Clinton / Berger et al actions in the late 90s. Making unsupportable claims doesn't advance your cause, it undercuts it.

Posted by too true 2004-07-22 2:31:24 PM|| 2004-07-22 2:31:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 The millenium bombings were stopped by an alert and smart customs lady on the US-Canada border not by anything brilliant done by Clintoon, Bergler or Richard Clarke.

And I NEVER EVER make unsupportable claims.
It's just not my style.
Carp at me and attack me with ad hominems, but I'm still right and me and my team will protect this country while you're still bitching because we're right and are armed with the facts and the knowledge.
Bergler was sent in to get these papers to protect the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission, which was that Clinton wasn't "responsible."
That's why the story broke 2 days before the report was published.
Clinton's in the clear and Sandy's gonna take the fall.

Posted by Jen 2004-07-22 2:38:23 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-22 2:38:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 me and my team will protect this country while you're still bitching because we're right and are armed with the facts and the knowledge.

Jen, there are people who are serving this country and protecting it who don't share your political views. There are more Democrats in the military than you might realize, for instance.

And not everyone in office whose policies are wrongheaded are traitors, either.

If you can't see that, if you dismiss the service and sacrifice that my family has made for decades and is making today, then you are dangerously near-sighted.

Posted by rkb 2004-07-22 2:44:38 PM|| 2004-07-22 2:44:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 I would never denigrate your service or anyone else's in the U.S. military.
I am deeply grateful and proud of every one of our men and women in uniform and support them every chance I get!
Actually what I said wasn't a put down of the military in any way!I just didn't care for it to be used as a qualifying 'litmus" test for being able to comment on our nation's security and safety.
Since 9/11 we are all soldiers on the front lines now.
(It has been ever thus. We just didn't know it.)
Everything I've read and seen leads to believe that most servicemen and women vote GOP and support Bush as the CiC and have reasons similar to mine for not having much time for Democrats Clinton and Carter, and then some (like Clinton's attempt to have gays in the military and to put women in combat, both of which have hurt morale).
Remember it was Al Gore's people who threw out the military ballots in the Florida Recount 2000 because they were mostly Bush votes.
Our GIs were the people who were disenfranchised.
Shame.
This Berger affair is more of the same corrupt and sleazy antics we've come to expect from the "most ethical administration in history."

Posted by Jen 2004-07-22 3:08:27 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-22 3:08:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Jen, you've made it pretty clear that in your opinion "your team" (by which I assume you mean Republicans) are the only good guys and are good guys on all issues. And that it's "your team" that is defending the country while others bitch.

I'll repeat what I said above: there are more Democrats that you might think in the military. I know this from personal experience. And I rather resent your assumption that I and my family members who are active in the military/nation security arena automatically agree with you on political matters. It's pretty presumptuous of you to say so.

Of course having military experience isn't a litmus test for commenting on security issues. But if you don't, and others do -- and if they disagree with you on some issue -- it might be that their opinions are based on some important insights.

Doesn't mean you need to agree with them. Does suggest you tone down your "my side is 99% right and the rest of you are idiots ... oh and my guys are the only ones who care about security" rhetoric.

To bring this back to Berger, I'm reserving judgement on motives at this point. He has admitted to taking code word classified documents, inadvertently according to him. He also admits to having taken notes which he smuggled out.

This is pretty serious stuff. That level of classification is not given lightly. I hope to God the information was not compromised to third parties because by report it contained very sensitive intelligence data and descriptions of ongoing undercover operations &/or security precautions in place.

I'm inclined to believe his motives were to prepare for potential criticism, andperhaps also to censor out evidence that he tried to get Clark to soften his criticsm of the Clinton administration's counter terror actions (or lack thereof).

But you know, I'm pretty sure no one here is a reliable mind reader, so for now we'll just have to say that we don't know what his motives were, even if we have pet theories about them.

Posted by rkb 2004-07-22 3:24:20 PM|| 2004-07-22 3:24:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Uh... Jen.
Doing the Red, White and Blue on RKB is contra indicated.

Posted by Harpi 2004-07-22 3:32:41 PM|| 2004-07-22 3:32:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 One more point, while I'm sucking up bandwidth here ... (and I did donate to Fred this week for the new server LOL):

There's a difference between bad policies and not caring.

Clinton et al seemed to believe the whole "end of history" nonsense. In retrospect (and in my opinion at the time) they failed to see that the dominant world power must draw the line on the outrageous behavior of countries like N. Korea, China and Iraq.

That does not, however, mean they didn't and don't care about the security of this country. It means they defined it differently than most here do, or saw the threat differently.

Berger's a good example of this (I mean, pre-Archive rifling). By report, he was not in favor of accepting Sudan's offer to turn over bin Laden, for instance. But I don't think the reason was that he didn't care about the US, it was because he judged (very incorrectly) that it was in our best interests not to stir up major anti-US sentiment among Moslems by such a move.

It's a serious mistake to believe that people who don't share your opinion or judgement on policy issues doesn't care about security or the homeless or whatever.

Now, it's certainly possible that someone in the position of National Security Advisor could be indifferent or casual about the country's defense. But that's not been my experience of people in senior leadership positions, anymore than it is my experience that social and fiscal conservatives don't care about good lives for the poor.

I think Berger's policies and advice as NSA were based on false assumptions and wishful thinking. I don't think they were due to corruption. No personal knowledge, I admit, but based on long conversations with a deeply conservative military officer who spent a lot of time around the NSC in the late 90s.

Here's why the distinction matters. If you assume that Democrats or whomever care about the country, it's possible to have a debate about policy and to hold our country together.

If you don't, if you assume that everyone who disagrees with you on some issue is stupid and/or evil, we will tear ourselves apart before the Islamacists or the Chinese or whomever do it for us.

Posted by rkb 2004-07-22 3:41:08 PM|| 2004-07-22 3:41:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 One interesting point that isn't getting a lot of play:

Clinton says that he knew about this "for months."

And he didn't warn Kerry? I can't believe that Kerry would have Berger on his team if he knew. Maybe Clinton is working against Kerry.

Posted by Formerly Dan 2004-07-22 3:42:12 PM|| 2004-07-22 3:42:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Aggh ... sloppy typing in my last comment. That's what comes from slipping a response in while in a hurry. Sigh - I hate finding serious grammar/spelling errors in something I post. One of my quirks LOL.

Posted by rkb 2004-07-22 4:36:02 PM|| 2004-07-22 4:36:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 too true ....I wanted to apologize for my tone earlier today. For whatever reason it appears I came across a little combative. That was not my intention, nor do I think it instructive or healthy for this type of content.

Posted by Dragon Fly 2004-07-22 9:13:48 PM|| 2004-07-22 9:13:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Too true:

Well, that didn't come out quite right. I didn't mean to insult you with the "position of trust" statement and I apologize if it came out that way. It's just that everyone with whom I work is saying the same thing as I, that this guy is a traitor, while My friends who have never dealt with classified stuff think it's either NBD (Dems) or another example of Clinton sleaze or Kerry's unfitness to be Pres (GOPs).

Your message sounded as if you were in the latter class. I guess it's a culture thing. I was never in the services and to Me, people who wear medals they didn't earn is silly, but that's all. Whereas My friends who did serve have a much harsher opinion of them and use stronger language. I'm not part of that culture. I guess I ass-u-me-ed that you were not in classified processing.

I think the same way about someone who betrays the trust in handling classified stuff. We all were saying "if I screwed up once, I would be canned and perhaps be put in prison, while this guy does it five times and is still out there."

The Constitution says that he didn't commit "treason," but I can't find any other word strong enough for what he did. We feel "betrayed" by him. He was let into the club, then went and abused it. He has hurt the country. He has weakend the morale of us who are expected to suffer the annoyances and nit-picking rules in order to be able to serve the country. Oh, I'm not saying he's made us turn Vichy, but every little hit to morale and trust hurts us a little bit, and the add up.

Please note that I do not thinks this reflects in any way on Kerry, since he dumped him. Frankly, until a couple days ago, I would have said that he was the logical choice for Kerry's foreign-policy advisor. Wrong, with bad ideas, but not evil. Nor do I tie this in any way to the Clintons.

But Berger. Grrrrrrr. Oh, and the people who actually let him do it five times. OK, I can understand maybe once and perhaps the second time could have been a Sting to get evidence to convict, but after three or four times, stop already!

I'm still steamed at this.

Posted by jackal 2004-07-22 10:49:52 PM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2004-07-22 10:49:52 PM|| Front Page Top

12:09 alex B.
11:54 Anonymous6488
10:43 Anonymous5901
13:27 Anonymous5891
00:06 Zenster
00:05 Fred
23:48 AzCat
23:46 Zenster
23:39 borgboy
23:38 borgboy
23:36 borgboy
23:34 borgboy
23:32 Super Hose
23:30 borgboy
23:26 OldSpook
23:23 Jarhead
23:15 Silentbrick
23:01 cheaderhead
22:57 J Chirac
22:54 ed
22:51 ed
22:49 jackal
22:46 cheaderhead
22:33 Barbara Skolaut