Joel Mowbray writes at Townhall on how our MSM has decided to be quite nonchalant about the huge story of a National Security Advisor stealing classified documents, hiding them behind trailers, and then getting a slap on the wrist:
With the release of an internal investigation (ed. PDF file)last week, we now know that former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger not only knowingly flouted laws for handling classified documents, but he also went to incredible lengths to cover his tracks and thwart investigators.
While Berger’s "punishment" was a pittance of a fine, former Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin has been financially ruined and sentenced to 12 and a half years for passing along far less-classified information to unauthorized third parties.
Unfortunately, disproportionate justice is inherent to the legal system. The written playbook might be the same for various cases, but different judges and different dynamics can lead to dramatically disparate results.
But what excuse is there for the wildly different media coverage of the two cases, both of which came to public attention in the summer of 2004?
A low level employee gets 12 years in prison and a half dozen front page articles while Mr. Berger got fined and ONE….count it…..ONE front page article:
In the end, the FBI’s full-court press only netted one conviction of a government official. Franklin plea-bargained to three counts, including passing classified information to an Israeli government official and two men at pro-Israel lobby AIPAC. (The trial of Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman is slated to begin by the spring.)
According to someone with intimate knowledge of the leaked draft presidential directive, the document contained no sources and no methods. It had no sensitive material of any kind. It was nothing more than a policy paper — just a few pages that resembled an opinion-editorial — advocating tougher diplomacy, not war, in dealing with Iran.
Reporters at The Post and the New York Times worked overtime to find new angles in the Franklin case, and that effort yielded considerable ink. On the Berger case, though, the mega newspapers simply reported stories as information came out. There was no digging, no investigative passion. Even the disclosure of the inspector general’s report only happened because of a freedom of information request filed by the Associated Press.
[…]Berger claimed in court last year that smuggling classified documents out of the National Archives was about "personal convenience," but the inspector general report states that he walked out of the building and down the street, found a construction site, looked to see if the coast was clear, then slid behind a fence and hid the documents under a trailer.
Which part of that elaborate procedure was "convenient"?
According to the New York Times story last April following Berger’s guilty plea, "Associates attributed the episode to fatigue and poor judgment." While lying to authorities is poor judgment, it is also illegal. And how exactly did fatigue drive Berger to use his scissors to shred three versions of the top-secret document?
Despite the report’s devastating blow to Berger’s excuse machine, it was buried. The Post dumped it on page 7, and the New York Times exiled it to page 36.
And people wonder why the MSM is accused of being biased. Think about this for a minute. If a Republican, oh say Condi Rice, had stolen classified documents from the National Archives and hid them behind a trailer do you think the MSM would be so blasé about it? Hell, they along with every Democrat would be screaming for heads to roll.
On the same subject we have the Oversight and Government Reform Committee Ranking Member Tom Davis issuing the following statement about the newly released investigation findings:
“My staff’s investigation reveals that President Clinton’s former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger compromised national security much more than originally disclosed,” Davis said. “It is now also clear that Mr. Berger was willing to go to extraordinary lengths to compromise national security, apparently for his own convenience.
“The 9/11 Commission relied on incomplete and misleading information regarding its access to documents Mr. Berger reviewed. No one ever told the Commission that Mr. Berger had access to original documents that he could have taken without detection.
“We now know that Mr. Berger left stolen highly classified documents at a construction site to avoid detection. We know that Mr. Berger insisted on privacy at times to allow him to conceal documents that he stole. One witness with a very high security clearance believed he saw Berger concealing documents in his socks.
“Mr. Berger’s review of documents did not conform to the usual requirements for reviewing classified documents in a secure facility and under strict supervision. The Archives staff’s failure to contact law enforcement immediately and their contacts with Mr. Berger about the missing documents compromised the law enforcement effort.
“The compromised law enforcement effort contributes to reduced confidence that the 9/11 Commission received all the documents it requested. The execution of a search warrant before Mr. Berger knew there was an investigation would have either located additional documents or enhanced confidence that he stole no others than those he admitted to taking.
“The public statements of the former chief of the public integrity section, Noel Hillman, were incomplete and misleading. Because Mr. Berger had access to original documents that he could have taken without detection, we do not know if anything ‘was lost to the public or the process.’
“The Justice Department’s assertion that Mr. Berger’s statements are credible after being caught is misplaced. One wouldn’t rely on the fox to be truthful after being nabbed in the hen house. But the Justice Department apparently did.”
There is good reason to be concerned that the 9/11 Commission didn’t get the whole story since Berger was intent on stealing the DRAFTS of the after action report. The final version was of no use to him since they had been distributed eons ago. But the drafts contain notes and comments that probably would have shed much light on what was known by the Clinton administration about Al-Qaeda in the United States.
This was worse the Watergate and what did we hear from the Democrats and our MSM?
Not a damn thing.
See author page
I try not to get angry, but I feel my boiling…
…’feel my BLOOD boiling’…(oops)
So, my sick sad world (courtesty Daria) mentality had me crack open Richard (blame me, but it’s not my fault) Clarke’s book last night. Against All Enemies is a very good source for open intel. I was looking for more on the USS Cole as I think I’ve discovered something important, but anyway…Clarke goes on to describe the Millenium After Action report very well.
If reports are true that Berger boosted the sections on Sudanese intel that was attempted to be given to the US, then poor ole Sandy just ain’t gonna be able to cover his tracks fast enough and full enough.
Why?
The Sudanese govt (According to Richard Miniter’s books and other sources-like the myriad of CIA tell alls that came out under Tenet) suggest very strongly that the US was getting intel on AQ from Sudan from 96+ …possibly even earlier.
Sandy’s problems?
First and fore most the intel he stole to cover his tracks about Sudanese intel that was provided was provided to State Dept, went through DIA and CIA, and the Dept of the Navy used it, published some critical parts of it in mid 2000-published/classified, but published to security and intel officers in the C5f and C6f regions (Mediterranean Sea, Red Sea, Arabian Sea, W Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf).
Now, after reading Clarke’s book, the Bushbasher/excusemaker mentions something that’s clearly the source of unsavoryness to Sandy at a time when the 911 Commission was holding public hearings with people-including him. Clarke says that the Millenium report focused on 1 thing over and over again, “Al Queda is here,” in the US, in North, Central, and S America. Having had that repeatedly pointed out in early 2000, Berger and the CSG did nothing. Berger did not take action relating to the findings of the Millenium after action report that said, AQ is here; ie AQ is in the US and gonna hit us. All the hype about W not doing anything to prevent 911 is pure BS, and I’m happy to prove it en masse to anyone and everyone, but let’s look beyond that and ask what Berger, Clarke, and Clinton did for a year after being told specifically that AQ was in the US and planning to attack the US (almost 2yrs before 911). Did they even provide this report to the Bush Admin. Nope. Did they tell the Bush admin that AQ is here, we know it, and they’re planning to attack the US in a big war? Nope. Instead, they stashed the Millenium After Action report, got it into the archives asap, and when it was going to be released via the 911 Comm that the Clinton Admin knew a devastating attack was in the works in the US… they did nothing. They didn’t even TELL the new Admin.
Among the covered up sins…Clarke repeatedly says in his book that the FBI discovered an extensive AQ network in Boston. Where’d the 911 hijackers take off from? This isn’t to say the Clinton NSC knew about the 911 plot specifically, but had they had the testicular fortitude to take action recommended in the Millenium After Action report, they’d have been removed the support net for the AQ terrorists in the US, and there’s a very good chance the 911 plot would have been thwarted. If they’d have been able to swallow ego and pride as well as Monica did, then they’d have at least informed the Bush Admin about the Millenium After Action Report so THEY could have better understood the immediacy of the AQ threat in the US.
And then there’s the USS Cole….(or rather back to it from earlier).
The Millenium plots were thwarted not by the Clinton Admin but by Jordanian intel and an American border guard doing her job as she always had. There is NOTHING that the Clinton Admin did that had an effect on the 010100 plots.
However, the Jordanians that infiltrated and broke up the AQ millenium plot in their country followed up with the intel from that. The intel from their interrogations (and I’m not so sure a Jordanian interrogation includes Miranda rights etc) lead them to an AQ leader in Yemen who was trying to blow up an American ship on the Millenium, the USS The Sullivans. Uber counter-terrorism czar/failure that he is, Richard Clarke thwarted that attack by calling upon the spirt of Sir Isaac Newton to increase gravity and re-balance the density of the waters in the port of Aden. Subsequently, the raft that the AQ terrorists used to attack the USS The Sullivans managed to sink under its own weight (somehow or another we have Richard Clarke to thank for that apparently as he, Berger, Clinton, Albright, and partisan hacks all give Clinton and his admin credit for thwarting the Millenium attacks). Seriously, the intel gained by the Jordanians when they broke up their plot lead them on many sidetracks, and among them was that an AQ group in Yemen was trying to blow up an American ship.
This info was passed on to CIA. CIA passed it on to DIA and Dept of Navy Criminal Investigations (terrorism was a crime-not an act of war until 911). I have strong suspicians that the NSA knew too, but my source cannot confirm/deny that…they can only say “look at the Russians when looking at this.”
Ok, so I’m reading the unclassified FOIA data from the USS Cole investigations (there were several: a DoD, a Dept of Navy, a JAG Corps, a fifth fleet investigation, a sixth fleet investigation, I suspect an NSA investigation, and of course the FBI investigation. All of these investigations reports and info remain classified except 1). In the info I’ve got, the LtJG who was charged with ship security during the refueling, and who was charged with counter terror ops etc…reports that when in the Adriatic (about 1-2 months earlier) they were told:
“While in the Adriatic [the month before the attack] we received a threat brief from the ISC(SW)[classified] that U.B.L. had promised an attack against a U.S. shipin the C6F or C5F [Med, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, and Indian Ocean ops area]. The brief said that the ship would be steaming independently and the attack would most likely be with a kamikaze attack.”
This is a hand-written report I’m citing.
I’ve three others that corroborate it and go into further detail-even describing the man suspected of driving the boat…months before the “kamikaze boat” hit em.
This intel can also be found in [classified]a message from “Director, Naval Criminal Investigative Service DIRNAVCRIMVSERV 082100Z OCT 00” to the USS Cole
“Navy Criminal Investigative Service Foreign Office, Bahrain, message NAVCRIMINVSERVFO MIDDLE EAST BAHRAIN 0816a1Z SEP 99, SUBJ: THREAT ASSESSMENT AND SECURITY OVERVIEW-ADEN, YEMEN” sent to the USS Cole
my FOIA attempts at getting copies of this remain failures. Am going directly to my Congressman’s office Fri.
SURELY, if the Millenium after action report that Berger stole from included intel from Jordan saying, “…U.B.L. had promised an attack against a U.S. shipin the C6F or C5F [Med, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, and Indian Ocean ops area]. The brief said that the ship would be steaming independently and the attack would most likely be with a kamikaze attack.”
Well, I think that might be an important thing to sorta…lose or accidentally drop into my sock, then accidentally drop under a construction trailer, then accidentally drop in my shredder at home.
To make matters worse (man, make sure you’re sitting down), the stuff Berger supposedly stole included intel provided by Sudan to the US. The guy that the Jordanians fingered ala their interrogations was constantly moving between Kenya, Somalia, and Sudan; the same area the US is bombing and hitting with C130 gunships to kill the leader of the 1998 African Embassy Bombings. Moreover, in the back of Richard Miniter’s book, Losing Bin Laden, there’s photocopies of some of the intel the Sudanese gave the US before the Millenium-confirming that the US did get intel from them despite Berger’s claims to the contrary.
What was it that the Sudanese intelligence was telling the US? Whatever it was, it was damning of the Clinton Admin, it was regarding the Millenium attacks, and since the Millenium attacks involved the failed attempt on the USS The Sullivans, it very well may have been the suggestion that AQ was near Sudan and planning to attack a US ship.
Ok, that’s not really all that damning I guess, but what about the report in Richard Miniter’s book, Losing Bin Laden? Miniter reports that in July 1999, the CIA broke up a terror cell/ring in Lebanon and the intel from that told the CIA (again, this is 7/99) that AQ was planning an attack on a USN vessel in the Eastern Med. The USS Cole’s security officer, LtJG’s handwritten testimony says that he was informed in late summer in the Adriatic that Bin Laden was planning a suicide boat attack on a US ship in the Med (or in the Sixth Fleet area of ops, but I think that intel came from Sudan).
Oh man, don’t even get me started on Iraq’s involvement, the reports from various Cole sailors on “the Iraqi Line” that blocked their way and prevented them from fueling port side as desired. Don’t get me started on the impotence of the investigations into the Cole and how they were all finger-pointing efforts aimed at the crew. Don’t get me started on how the FBI’s Louis Freeh specifically knew that the explosives were Russian, and that they were Russian explosives sent to Iraq, or how the CIA had an agent on the History Channel claiming that “it was common knowledge that the Iraqis had ‘tutored’ the bomb makers on the design of the shaped charge.’
The USS Cole is my hot button issue-bigtime
My point in all of this is that blaming Clinton or Blaming Bush for things is counter-productive and deliberately ignorant of history. Both deserve blame, and we all deserve blame for being so partisan about the attack that we point fingers at political opponents for political debate scoring points rather than point the fingers at the bombers, those who gave them RDX, those who designed and helped build the largest shape charge in world history, or those who masterminded the plot, or those who did it.
We’ve come to blame police chiefs instead of murderers.
To that end, Sandy Berger’s deliberate effort to manipulate history is disgusting, worthy of a firing squad in my opinion, purely treasonous, and it’s a failure.
The truth is out there in the books.
The truth is out there in the survivors.
The truth is out there in the interrogation and intel reports of a half dozen countries involved (even Canada which surely has a copy of the Millenium After Action report)
The truth is out there, specifcally, in a message from “Director, Naval Criminal Investigative Service DIRNAVCRIMVSERV 082100Z OCT 00” to the USS Cole
“Navy Criminal Investigative Service Foreign Office, Bahrain, message NAVCRIMINVSERVFO MIDDLE EAST BAHRAIN 0816a1Z SEP 99, SUBJ: THREAT ASSESSMENT AND SECURITY OVERVIEW-ADEN, YEMEN” sent to the USS Cole in late summer 99-shortly after the CIA broke up the cell in Lebanon, shortly after the Sudanese sent intel to the US that Berger destroyed, and around the time that Jordan had infiltrated the Millenium attack cell in their country.
If this post is too long and detailed and confusing, remember this handwritten account from the officer in charge of port security for the USS Cole, regarding threat assessment before the attack, and written immediately after it.
“U.B.L. had promised an attack against a U.S. shipin the C6F or C5F [Med, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, and Indian Ocean ops area]. The brief said that the ship would be steaming independently and the attack would most likely be with a kamikaze attack.”
btw, the report that contains this testimony is classified, but the testimony is not. My doc has UNCLASSIFIED stamped on it twice, and that’s good enough for me.
Sam,
I KNOW that what you are saying makes sense…BIGTIME!! I would just add one little thing. Supposedly, Lee Hamilton (vice chair of the 9/11 Commission) also was involved in the “sharing” of intel from the Sudanese government to the Clinton administration. At least one letter was addressed to Hamilton to carry to President Clinton and his NS advisor Berger, offering intelligence as to the activities of bin Laden. It was rejected. How come this wasn’t noted in the final report of the 9/11 Commission final report?
As far as Noel Hillman, the prosecutor in the case against Berger, his statement that he could absolutely state that there were no hand written notes on the pages taken…JUST HOW THE HELL DID HE KNOW? HOW COULD HE POSSIBLY VOUCH FOR DOCUMENTS THAT HE COULDN’T HAVE SEEN BECAUSE THEY WERE STOLEN!!!
Carol J
lol
Ya can laugh or cry Carol.
Of course there were no handwritten notes, and of course he can say that in all honesty. When he saw the report. There were no handwritten notes (ie, they were gone).
I’m not a fan of WND, but this writer is very good, and writes an excellent article in line with this thread-though not specific to it.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36272
I truly believe the article with the strongest of conviction as demonstrated by my own analysis and pointing out of fact-burying efforts re intel:
http://www.scottmalensek.com/PhaseIIrebuttalrpt.pdf
If only a list could be made of people who have actively covered things up, then maybe their politicans would stop listening to them, and maybe the msm would get its information from real sources instead of Jamil Husseins
It truly is astounding how easily the mainstream can just kind of sweep it under the rug. Oh, sure, they mention about it. But that’s all. The End. There’s no call for Sandy Berger to explain himself; no call for further investigation into what his motives are and what he destroyed. Where is the media curiosity? Where are the bloodhounds?
He in no way should be allowed to just get away with changing history. Where’s a Jack Bauer when you need one?
As far as Noel Hillman, the prosecutor in the case against Berger, his statement that he could absolutely state that there were no hand written notes on the pages taken…JUST HOW THE HELL DID HE KNOW? HOW COULD HE POSSIBLY VOUCH FOR DOCUMENTS THAT HE COULDN’T HAVE SEEN BECAUSE THEY WERE STOLEN!!!
Careful, Carol, you are watching the wrong hand in Hillman’s sleight-of-hand. (Isn’t that how sleight-of-hand works?) The documents that Berger was caught stealing did not have hand-written notes on them (at least not notes made before Berger’s Archive trips.) But watch the other hand — we have no idea about any documents that Berger wasn’t caught stealing. (As in that’s the definition of “wasn’t caught” right?)
During Berger’s first two trips to the archives he dealt with documents which were almost exclusively uncatalogued unduplicated originals. He spent most of the first trip (in May) with the contents of Richard Clarke’s office files. Sam’s posting gives lots of fuel to imagining just what Berger had access to there…
We know a lot about the documents that Berger admitted stealing because the Archives staff, in a clueless rush to “take care of the problem themselves,” set a trap for Berger because his behavior in his three earlier Archives trip had raised their suspicions. Because they didn’t trust him at that point they were very very careful to protect that stuff by making sure that they were dealing with copies and keeping track of what they were giving him.
Berger may have been attempting to prevent the earlier versions of the MAAR from getting to the 911 Commission, but since he got caught we know that didn’t succeed. The issue is not the report that we know about, but that we have no way to know how much (if any) uncatalogued unduplicated originals he grabbed on those earlier trips.
If a Republican had pulled this stunt, or even less (a third rate burglary?), the leftists would have been running around with silver platters looking for heads to grace them.
Burglarize Democratic headquarters to get old pamphlets on how to wage a sit in …and the left turn into frothing Doberman’s.
But have a leftist lackey steal and destroy potentially vital information about our national security and about the rabid groups that are looking to maim, poison and murder us…and the leftists apparently don’t give a Shitzhu.
It’s not that they don’t have any principles or priorities, it’s just that the former aren’t the latter.
Umm; the “Drafts†of the after action report were ALL printouts. Those weren’t the alleged “originalsâ€Â.
And if Berger was trying to hide something; where is this smoking gun in the copies of the reports we know he took? Did anyone think of that one?