Sandy Berger, who stole highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, destroyed them and lied to investigators, is now an adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. Berger, who was fired from John Kerry's presidential campaign when the scandal broke in 2004, has assumed a similar role in Clinton's campaign, even though his security clearance has been suspended until September 2008. This is raising eyebrows even among Clinton's admirers. "It shows poor judgment and a lack of regard for Berger's serious misdeeds," said law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University, who nonetheless called Clinton "by far the most impressive candidate in the Democratic field."
Adler told The Examiner that it is "simply incomprehensible to me that a serious contender for the presidency would rely upon him as a key foreign policy advisor."
http://www.examiner.com/a-977346~He_s_back__Sandy_Berger_now_advising_Hillary_Clinton.html (http://www.examiner.com/a-977346~He_s_back__Sandy_Berger_now_advising_Hillary_Clinton.html)
NO Comments????? :confused:
QuoteIn April 2005, Berger plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives in Washington. According to the lead prosecutor in the case Berger only took copies of classified information and that no original material was destroyed, however there is notable controversy and speculation that he might have removed or destroyed originals of other unknown documents as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger
you got anything else?
Quote from: awol on October 09, 2007, 06:40:09 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger
you got anything else?
what more do you need??
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 09, 2007, 06:42:36 AM
what more do you need??
how about whatever it would take for you to condemn one of your own.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 08, 2007, 04:59:39 PM
Sandy Berger, who stole highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, destroyed them and lied to investigators, is now an adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. Berger, who was fired from John Kerry's presidential campaign when the scandal broke in 2004, has assumed a similar role in Clinton's campaign, even though his security clearance has been suspended until September 2008. This is raising eyebrows even among Clinton's admirers. "It shows poor judgment and a lack of regard for Berger's serious misdeeds," said law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University, who nonetheless called Clinton "by far the most impressive candidate in the Democratic field."
Adler told The Examiner that it is "simply incomprehensible to me that a serious contender for the presidency would rely upon him as a key foreign policy advisor."
http://www.examiner.com/a-977346~He_s_back__Sandy_Berger_now_advising_Hillary_Clinton.html (http://www.examiner.com/a-977346~He_s_back__Sandy_Berger_now_advising_Hillary_Clinton.html)
This is quite concerning, but considering who is pulling the strings I can't say that I'm surprised. :no:
Quote from: awol on October 09, 2007, 08:08:03 AM
how about whatever it would take for you to condemn one of your own.
Lets stay here first, topic at hand....He
stole highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives,
destroyed them and
lied to investigators...
Why is this NOT NEWS!...Where is Chris Matthews? Here is a REAL scoop for Dan Rather....how bout Katic Couric?....and Matt Laurer?...
I'll tell ya, they are liberal newscasters who want to slant ALL of their news to propaganize the left, and slam and damage those on the right........it is 100% fact.
They WILL NEVER mention ANYTHING about this story......................THIS GUY IS A proven THIEF AND A LIAR....proven!!!! FACTO EXACTO!!...100% quilty.............he admitted stealing documents....
On several occasions, Berger stuffed highly classified documents into his pants and socks before spiriting them out of the Archives building in Washington, according to investigators. On one occasion, upon reaching the street, he hid documents under a construction trailer after checking the windows of the Archives and Justice Department buildings to make sure he was not being watched.
Berger came back later and retrieved the documents, taking them home and cutting them up with scissors. Two days later, he was informed by Archive employees that his removal of documents had been detected.
"Berger panicked because he realized he was caught," said a report by the National Archives inspector general, which also recounted his initial reaction. "Berger lied."
The official story is a lil' different than as presented above:
QuoteAccording to the charges, Berger -- between September 2 and October 2, 2003 -- "knowingly removed classified documents from the National Archives and Records Administration and stored and retained such documents at places," such as his private Washington office.
Berger's associates admit he took five copies of an after-action report detailing the 2000 millennium terror plot from the Archives. The aides say Berger returned to his office, discovered that three of the copies appeared to be duplicates and cut them up with scissors.
The revelations were a dramatic change from Berger's claim last year that he had made an "honest mistake" and either misplaced or unintentionally threw the documents away.
When Archives officials contacted him after they realized documents were missing, Berger told them about the two copies he had, and returned them, along with his handwritten notes, officials said.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/berger.sentenced/
wait a minute....what makes yours official? it is two year old......he ADMITTED he STOLE documents.........he admits it......he lied and he stole and he destroyed "terror plots"................does this not bother you at ALL?.....because he is democrat? that makes this okay, i guess :rolleyes:
What was he hiding?.......................how is it an honest mistake to put top secret documents into you pants then steal them and cut them up.............this is amazing to me.
Who cares? You've fallen for more of the right wing witch hunting. They're simply grasping at any straw in an attempt to either discredit her and gain a few points or take the attention off of their own candidates lack of support.
He paid his debt and according to Hillary he has no OFFICIAL duties with her campaign.
Sen. Clinton: Sandy Berger has 'no official role in my campaign' (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/10/sen-clinton-san.html)
QuoteSusan asked whether Clinton has any qualms about having Berger as an unofficial adviser to her campaign, given his mishandling of sensitive, classified intelligence documents in 2003?
"He has no official role in my campaign. He's been a friend for more than 30 years. But he doesn't have any official role," Clinton said.
But he's an unofficial adviser, Susan asked?
"I have thousands of unofficial advisers," said Clinton, "and, you know, I appreciate all of that. But he has no official role in my campaign."
Your source is a conservative source, newsmax is no better.
Quote from: PIYA on October 09, 2007, 09:20:07 AM
Who cares? You've fallen for more of the right wing witch hunting. They're simply grasping at any straw in an attempt to either discredit her and gain a few points or take the attention off of their own candidates lack of support.
He paid his debt and according to Hillary he has no OFFICIAL duties with her campaign.
Sen. Clinton: Sandy Berger has 'no official role in my campaign' (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/10/sen-clinton-san.html)
Your source is a conservative source, newsmax is no better.
It does not matter the source..................HE ADMITTED TO STEALING DOCUMENTS AND DESTROYING THEM and HE admitted to LYING....
go ahead and spin it and drop it................that is the way the media on the left does it.................they just drop it and it goes away......
unless the EVIL right wing people talk about it............and THEN ...WE are the ones on a WITCH HUNT.....................
Piya, THIS IS A REAL NEWSWORTHY event....................this is why, people like myself, HATE the NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, NY TIMES..........it is blantantly biased................and the left say oh FOXNEWS IS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO biased.................
again...........this dickhead, a forme national security advisor .................STEALS documents related to 9/11 and terrorism...............DESTROYS them.................and TRYIES to lie about it.........................................and slap him on his hand and MoveON
Okay, he's guilty, but who cares? How important is it now? really? What's more concerning is that he's not an official adviser like your source implies. That's what I'm talking about.
"He's guilty...who cares"......case and point! ;)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 09, 2007, 09:59:38 AM
"He's guilty...who cares"......case and point! ;)
You didn't answer my other question. How important is it now? Especially considering your "news source" is misleading?
Quote from: PIYA on October 09, 2007, 10:10:27 AM
You didn't answer my other question. How important is it now? Especially considering your "news source" is misleading?
How is it misleading?...........HE
ADMITTED to it...stealing, destroying National Archives regarging National Security...
I think our National Security IS important.......................WHY DID HE DO THIS?
If Nixon was a liberal, he would have left office... :yes:
That's not the point of the story.
No one is arguing the point that he's guilty. What I'm arguing is that the story is misleading in the fact that it implies he's playing a crucial role in her campaign. The article attempts to set her up by implying that she's on board w/his mistake/crime/whatever. That's not the case.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 09, 2007, 10:14:10 AM
If Nixon was a liberal, he would have left office... :yes:
Quite a few Repubs have jumped ship lately. :yes:
Why don't you get your news from the National Enquirer? or The Globe?
The Washington Examiner is a tabloid. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Examiner)
Are you denying that the Berger Story is wrong?.............not the Hillary story, the Berger Story....
and she admits that he is an advisor, not an "offical" one though...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 09, 2007, 10:52:07 AM
Are you denying that the Berger Story is wrong?.............not the Hillary story, the Berger Story....
and she admits that he is an advisor, not an "offical" one though...
She also admits that she has thousands of advisers. Does that mean she takes each and every word of each and every one to heart? No.
Henry, it's a sensationalized piece of non-news.
Quote from: PIYA on October 09, 2007, 10:59:20 AM
She also admits that she has thousands of advisers. Does that mean she takes each and every word of each and every one to heart? No.
Henry, it's a sensationalized piece of non-news.
I agree to an extent, but the thing that bothers me is the Berger incident.............forget Hillary on this.............
This has been the Biggest Non Story of the last couple of years................and if this had been....Karl Rove destroying National Archives.......you cannot deny it would STILL be on the front page....
the sad thing is it should NOT be non-news as you say...
The Hillary angle is the non-story that I'm speaking of.
As for Berger, considering this came to light during the Bush administration, do you suppose that he would have gotten off SO easily if he had been guilty of a more serious crime? If the Repubs in control at that time had thought there were more to exploit regarding his crime in reference to 9/11, terrorists and to reduce their liability of being wrong, then don't you think they would have seized the opportunity?
That's all supposition, but I'm not so sure that it wasn't played in the media long enough. I'm also not sure that it matters what the media does or doesn't. If he was guilty, which apparently he was found guilty to a certain extent, then he should be punished. Which he was. I don't know what more you'd want. Headlines? Why? Berger is old news.