Betsy's Page

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Sloppy Sandy

More news has come out about Sandy Berger's theft of national security documents from the National Archives. And it's even clearer now than it was earlier that he was deliberately stealing certain documents. When he was first caught, he had a story about how he was inadvertently removing documents, but now that more of the information has been revealed, it's clear that he got off way too easily.
On the evening of Oct. 2, 2003, former White House national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger stashed highly classified documents he had taken from the National Archives beneath a construction trailer at the corner of Ninth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW so he could surreptitiously retrieve them later and take them to his office, according to a newly disclosed government investigation.

The documents he took detailed how the Clinton administration had responded to the threat of terrorist attacks at the end of 1999. Berger removed a total of five copies of the same document without authorization and later used scissors to destroy three before placing them in his office trash, the National Archives inspector general concluded in a Nov. 4, 2005, report.

After archives officials accused him of taking the documents, Berger told investigators, he "tried to find the trash collector but had no luck." But instead of admitting he had removed them deliberately -- by stuffing them in his suit pockets on multiple occasions -- Berger initially said he had removed them by mistake.

The fact that Berger, one of President Bill Clinton's closest aides from 1997 to 2001, illicitly removed the documents is well-known: A federal judge in September 2005 ordered him to pay a $50,000 fine for his actions and forfeit his security clearance for three years.

What Berger did, and the ham-handed and comical methods by which he did it, are freshly detailed in the National Archives report, which the Associated Press obtained first under a Freedom of Information Act request.
Okay, he admits that he deliberately removes documents concerning national security and hides them under a trailer in a construction area. He's a former National Security advisor stealing secret documents and all he got was a fine and community service! These were documents dealing with Al Qaeda and our efforts against them during Clinton's administration.

And the National Archives has no idea if they have copies of the documents that Berger stole and destroyed. They don't know if there were unique handwritten comments on those documents from Clinton officials that now no one will ever see.
Berger made four visits to the Archives to inspect Clinton administration records in 2003. The inspector general's office attempted to retrieve the missing documents and probed how the archives handled each of his visits. In its report, the office criticized the fact that Berger was given special treatment and also said the archives' investigation of his actions was "improper" because the FBI and Justice Department were not promptly informed.

The report states that in 2003, an official whose name was deleted informed the White House that the documents Berger reviewed during his first two visits -- in May and June of that year -- were so poorly organized and tracked that the archives "would never know what if any original documents were missing." Berger has said he removed nothing during those visits, and a source close to him said last night that no one had accused him of doing so.
This story seemed to go nowhere in the media. Bill Clinton laughed about it and said that it sounded just like the type of thing a sloppy guy like Sandy would do. The excuse that all the Clinton guys had for Berger was that his desk was always a mess so it was no jump in the imagination to think that he put national security documents in his briefcase. Yeah, right. And I guess it was just typical of the National Security Adviser to just place classified documents in a construction site.

Shouldn't the media have been more interested in knowing why he took such a risk in stealing classified documents? What was in those documents? Why did this story go nowhere at the time and we're just finding out these new details because the Associated Press filed a FOIA request? Why didn't all the media outlets want to know that information? after all, these were documents that he was reviewing in order to talk to the 9/11 Commission about security measures taken in the time before 9/11. No one really seems to have cared that there was something that Berger wanted to steal and destroy regarding that period.

Shouldn't people be outraged about this? Why did the Bush Justice Department let him get away with just a slap on the wrist? What about the whole idea that top officials should be punished more severely when they break the law as an example to other potential malefactors? Would some less exalted person who stole classified documents and destroyed them get away with a fine, community service, and a three-year loss of his national security clearance? I doubt it.

This story has popped up again because the redacted report was made available to AP. It will start conservatives talking for a couple of days and then it will go away. Sandy Berger will continue with his consulting business and no one will care. It really was an outrage.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:05 AM 0 comments

Comments:

More news has come out about Sandy Berger's theft of national security documents from the National Archives. And it's even clearer now than it was earlier that he was deliberately stealing certain documents. When he was first caught, he had a story about how he was inadvertently removing documents, but now that more of the information has been revealed, it's clear that he got off way too easily.

On the evening of Oct. 2, 2003, former White House national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger stashed highly classified documents he had taken from the National Archives beneath a construction trailer at the corner of Ninth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW so he could surreptitiously retrieve them later and take them to his office, according to a newly disclosed government investigation.

The documents he took detailed how the Clinton administration had responded to the threat of terrorist attacks at the end of 1999. Berger removed a total of five copies of the same document without authorization and later used scissors to destroy three before placing them in his office trash, the National Archives inspector general concluded in a Nov. 4, 2005, report.

After archives officials accused him of taking the documents, Berger told investigators, he "tried to find the trash collector but had no luck." But instead of admitting he had removed them deliberately -- by stuffing them in his suit pockets on multiple occasions -- Berger initially said he had removed them by mistake.

The fact that Berger, one of President Bill Clinton's closest aides from 1997 to 2001, illicitly removed the documents is well-known: A federal judge in September 2005 ordered him to pay a $50,000 fine for his actions and forfeit his security clearance for three years.

What Berger did, and the ham-handed and comical methods by which he did it, are freshly detailed in the National Archives report, which the Associated Press obtained first under a Freedom of Information Act request.

Okay, he admits that he deliberately removes documents concerning national security and hides them under a trailer in a construction area. He's a former National Security advisor stealing secret documents and all he got was a fine and community service! These were documents dealing with Al Qaeda and our efforts against them during Clinton's administration.

And the National Archives has no idea if they have copies of the documents that Berger stole and destroyed. They don't know if there were unique handwritten comments on those documents from Clinton officials that now no one will ever see.

Berger made four visits to the Archives to inspect Clinton administration records in 2003. The inspector general's office attempted to retrieve the missing documents and probed how the archives handled each of his visits. In its report, the office criticized the fact that Berger was given special treatment and also said the archives' investigation of his actions was "improper" because the FBI and Justice Department were not promptly informed.

The report states that in 2003, an official whose name was deleted informed the White House that the documents Berger reviewed during his first two visits -- in May and June of that year -- were so poorly organized and tracked that the archives "would never know what if any original documents were missing." Berger has said he removed nothing during those visits, and a source close to him said last night that no one had accused him of doing so.

This story seemed to go nowhere in the media. Bill Clinton laughed about it and said that it sounded just like the type of thing a sloppy guy like Sandy would do. The excuse that all the Clinton guys had for Berger was that his desk was always a mess so it was no jump in the imagination to think that he put national security documents in his briefcase. Yeah, right. And I guess it was just typical of the National Security Adviser to just place classified documents in a construction site.

Shouldn't the media have been more interested in knowing why he took such a risk in stealing classified documents? What was in those documents? Why did this story go nowhere at the time and we're just finding out these new details because the Associated Press filed a FOIA request? Why didn't all the media outlets want to know that information? after all, these were documents that he was reviewing in order to talk to the 9/11 Commission about security measures taken in the time before 9/11. No one really seems to have cared that there was something that Berger wanted to steal and destroy regarding that period.

Shouldn't people be outraged about this? Why did the Bush Justice Department let him get away with just a slap on the wrist? What about the whole idea that top officials should be punished more severely when they break the law as an example to other potential malefactors? Would some less exalted person who stole classified documents and destroyed them get away with a fine, community service, and a three-year loss of his national security clearance? I doubt it.

This story has popped up again because the redacted report was made available to AP. It will start conservatives talking for a couple of days and then it will go away. Sandy Berger will continue with his consulting business and no one will care. It really was an outrage.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:05 AM 0 comments

Comments: Post a Comment

The truth about Avesil

Cheap Hosting

Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney

Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney

Wikio

Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights

Online Bachelors Degree

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Sloppy Sandy

		Betsy's Page

HOME Betsy neither necessarily uses, nor endorses, the products advertised on this site. The truth about Avesil Cheap Hosting Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney Wikio Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights Online Bachelors Degree Comments from an AP history and government teacher in Raleigh, NC. e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you. Site Feed		Thursday, December 21, 2006 Sloppy Sandy More news has come out about Sandy Berger's theft of national security documents from the National Archives. And it's even clearer now than it was earlier that he was deliberately stealing certain documents. When he was first caught, he had a story about how he was inadvertently removing documents, but now that more of the information has been revealed, it's clear that he got off way too easily. On the evening of Oct. 2, 2003, former White House national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger stashed highly classified documents he had taken from the National Archives beneath a construction trailer at the corner of Ninth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW so he could surreptitiously retrieve them later and take them to his office, according to a newly disclosed government investigation. The documents he took detailed how the Clinton administration had responded to the threat of terrorist attacks at the end of 1999. Berger removed a total of five copies of the same document without authorization and later used scissors to destroy three before placing them in his office trash, the National Archives inspector general concluded in a Nov. 4, 2005, report. After archives officials accused him of taking the documents, Berger told investigators, he "tried to find the trash collector but had no luck." But instead of admitting he had removed them deliberately -- by stuffing them in his suit pockets on multiple occasions -- Berger initially said he had removed them by mistake. The fact that Berger, one of President Bill Clinton's closest aides from 1997 to 2001, illicitly removed the documents is well-known: A federal judge in September 2005 ordered him to pay a $50,000 fine for his actions and forfeit his security clearance for three years. What Berger did, and the ham-handed and comical methods by which he did it, are freshly detailed in the National Archives report, which the Associated Press obtained first under a Freedom of Information Act request. Okay, he admits that he deliberately removes documents concerning national security and hides them under a trailer in a construction area. He's a former National Security advisor stealing secret documents and all he got was a fine and community service! These were documents dealing with Al Qaeda and our efforts against them during Clinton's administration. And the National Archives has no idea if they have copies of the documents that Berger stole and destroyed. They don't know if there were unique handwritten comments on those documents from Clinton officials that now no one will ever see. Berger made four visits to the Archives to inspect Clinton administration records in 2003. The inspector general's office attempted to retrieve the missing documents and probed how the archives handled each of his visits. In its report, the office criticized the fact that Berger was given special treatment and also said the archives' investigation of his actions was "improper" because the FBI and Justice Department were not promptly informed. The report states that in 2003, an official whose name was deleted informed the White House that the documents Berger reviewed during his first two visits -- in May and June of that year -- were so poorly organized and tracked that the archives "would never know what if any original documents were missing." Berger has said he removed nothing during those visits, and a source close to him said last night that no one had accused him of doing so. This story seemed to go nowhere in the media. Bill Clinton laughed about it and said that it sounded just like the type of thing a sloppy guy like Sandy would do. The excuse that all the Clinton guys had for Berger was that his desk was always a mess so it was no jump in the imagination to think that he put national security documents in his briefcase. Yeah, right. And I guess it was just typical of the National Security Adviser to just place classified documents in a construction site. Shouldn't the media have been more interested in knowing why he took such a risk in stealing classified documents? What was in those documents? Why did this story go nowhere at the time and we're just finding out these new details because the Associated Press filed a FOIA request? Why didn't all the media outlets want to know that information? after all, these were documents that he was reviewing in order to talk to the 9/11 Commission about security measures taken in the time before 9/11. No one really seems to have cared that there was something that Berger wanted to steal and destroy regarding that period. Shouldn't people be outraged about this? Why did the Bush Justice Department let him get away with just a slap on the wrist? What about the whole idea that top officials should be punished more severely when they break the law as an example to other potential malefactors? Would some less exalted person who stole classified documents and destroyed them get away with a fine, community service, and a three-year loss of his national security clearance? I doubt it. This story has popped up again because the redacted report was made available to AP. It will start conservatives talking for a couple of days and then it will go away. Sandy Berger will continue with his consulting business and no one will care. It really was an outrage. posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:05 AM 0 comments Comments: More news has come out about Sandy Berger's theft of national security documents from the National Archives. And it's even clearer now than it was earlier that he was deliberately stealing certain documents. When he was first caught, he had a story about how he was inadvertently removing documents, but now that more of the information has been revealed, it's clear that he got off way too easily. On the evening of Oct. 2, 2003, former White House national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger stashed highly classified documents he had taken from the National Archives beneath a construction trailer at the corner of Ninth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW so he could surreptitiously retrieve them later and take them to his office, according to a newly disclosed government investigation. The documents he took detailed how the Clinton administration had responded to the threat of terrorist attacks at the end of 1999. Berger removed a total of five copies of the same document without authorization and later used scissors to destroy three before placing them in his office trash, the National Archives inspector general concluded in a Nov. 4, 2005, report. After archives officials accused him of taking the documents, Berger told investigators, he "tried to find the trash collector but had no luck." But instead of admitting he had removed them deliberately -- by stuffing them in his suit pockets on multiple occasions -- Berger initially said he had removed them by mistake. The fact that Berger, one of President Bill Clinton's closest aides from 1997 to 2001, illicitly removed the documents is well-known: A federal judge in September 2005 ordered him to pay a $50,000 fine for his actions and forfeit his security clearance for three years. What Berger did, and the ham-handed and comical methods by which he did it, are freshly detailed in the National Archives report, which the Associated Press obtained first under a Freedom of Information Act request. Okay, he admits that he deliberately removes documents concerning national security and hides them under a trailer in a construction area. He's a former National Security advisor stealing secret documents and all he got was a fine and community service! These were documents dealing with Al Qaeda and our efforts against them during Clinton's administration. And the National Archives has no idea if they have copies of the documents that Berger stole and destroyed. They don't know if there were unique handwritten comments on those documents from Clinton officials that now no one will ever see. Berger made four visits to the Archives to inspect Clinton administration records in 2003. The inspector general's office attempted to retrieve the missing documents and probed how the archives handled each of his visits. In its report, the office criticized the fact that Berger was given special treatment and also said the archives' investigation of his actions was "improper" because the FBI and Justice Department were not promptly informed. The report states that in 2003, an official whose name was deleted informed the White House that the documents Berger reviewed during his first two visits -- in May and June of that year -- were so poorly organized and tracked that the archives "would never know what if any original documents were missing." Berger has said he removed nothing during those visits, and a source close to him said last night that no one had accused him of doing so. This story seemed to go nowhere in the media. Bill Clinton laughed about it and said that it sounded just like the type of thing a sloppy guy like Sandy would do. The excuse that all the Clinton guys had for Berger was that his desk was always a mess so it was no jump in the imagination to think that he put national security documents in his briefcase. Yeah, right. And I guess it was just typical of the National Security Adviser to just place classified documents in a construction site. Shouldn't the media have been more interested in knowing why he took such a risk in stealing classified documents? What was in those documents? Why did this story go nowhere at the time and we're just finding out these new details because the Associated Press filed a FOIA request? Why didn't all the media outlets want to know that information? after all, these were documents that he was reviewing in order to talk to the 9/11 Commission about security measures taken in the time before 9/11. No one really seems to have cared that there was something that Berger wanted to steal and destroy regarding that period. Shouldn't people be outraged about this? Why did the Bush Justice Department let him get away with just a slap on the wrist? What about the whole idea that top officials should be punished more severely when they break the law as an example to other potential malefactors? Would some less exalted person who stole classified documents and destroyed them get away with a fine, community service, and a three-year loss of his national security clearance? I doubt it. This story has popped up again because the redacted report was made available to AP. It will start conservatives talking for a couple of days and then it will go away. Sandy Berger will continue with his consulting business and no one will care. It really was an outrage. posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:05 AM 0 comments Comments: Post a Comment