And the New York Times demand an investigation because the leak is a scandal of monumentous importance!

And Bill Keller and the Times staff sliming the authors for their involvement.

The WAPO revealed a classified government operation using spare GULAG space in the old Eastern Bloc as interrrogation and detention of AQ

operatives.

I bet all the folks that were worried about outing a six year cold former CIA operative won’t even bat an eye lid about compromising on-going operations. So much for their concern about national security.

No evidence was found because Berger shredded it.No evidence is not the same as “Berger definitely didn’t do it”.

If Berger merely wanted to create an aide memoire why did he subsequently destroy it,had he memorised the information,made another copy or passed on the information?

If it was all so unimportant why did he bother with the whole juvenile hole in a corner enterprise? Berger put his career and reputation on the line for something.

Because of his position, his reactions to the assessment affected his advise to the POTUS.

And you think it doesn’t matter because they were written on a separate piece of paper?

Sandy knew they were important.

You, sir, are a fool.

The “notes” were written by Berger himself at the Archives, NOT on the documents themselves, but on a seperate piece of paper. They were HIS notes that he took as he read the classified material in the archives. They were nothing more than the “THOUGHTS OF SANDY”, or perhaps written transcriptions of the material. It was, however, against the law to take ANY notes out of the room. THEY WERE NOT PART OF THE REPORT, any more than notes I take when reading a book are somehow PART OF THAT BOOK.

And regarding the idea that he took this material because he was trying to hide something, take it away Bush appointee Hillman:

“Noel L. Hillman, who leads the Justice Department’s public integrity section, said after the hearing on Friday that the department’s investigation had found no evidence that Mr. Berger had intended to hide anything from the Sept. 11 commission. Indeed, the commission had access to all the original reports on the 2000 threat assessment, Mr. Hillman pointed out.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/politics/02berger.html?ei=5090&en=144290c629197d69&ex=1270098000&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&adxnnlx=1130908324-CQQrmtRng1U28Fe35X/IRw

You can have the last word.

It would seem to me that if she is really all that damn worried about her job she might have had a problem with Joe Wilson making claims that not only were suspect but which would have come back on her.

What did she think when she read that Wilson said Cheney sent him when she knew full well that was a lie?

She had to know that a lot of what he said was not true. What kind of an agent does that make her? Why did she not stop him?

-Terrye

_____________________________

…lotta questions.

speculation warning/caveat lector:

Macsmind – News, Conservative Commentary and Common Sense

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Plame Game – The DNC Connection

http://macsmind.blogspot.com/2005/11/plame-game-dnc-connection.html

Sometimes to go forward, you have to go back. There has been so much to this story. Much more than a “blog” can contain in a single, or even a group of postings. Yet as I said before, the past sometimes becomes clearer via hindsight.

In this case I go back to a story printed in Capital Hill Blue, dated 6 January 2003. This story is no long on the Capital Hill Blue’s website, but was captured by some posters on Free Republic at the time. For those who missed it here it is again.

Dems plan to undermine America to beat Bush

January 6, 2003 | By DOUG THOMPSON

“Democrats plan to undermine public confidence in President George W. Bush by challenging his credibility and raising doubts about America, sources within the party tell Capitol Hill Blue.

A multi-pronged attack against Republicans and the President will focus not only on economic issues, but question American values, raise doubts about how this country is viewed by other nations and question the patriotism of Bush and his party.

The extensive campaign, developed by senior Democratic consultants and party leaders, was launched last week with attacks on the Bush economic plan by Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Richard Gephardt.

In coming weeks, Democratic elected officials will question the President

Let me explain what Libby is alleged to have done. He allegedly told Miller, Cooper and maybe Russart that Plame worked at CIA Headquarters in Langley Virginia. He made no mention of any cover operations that she may have been involved in. If you had bothered to have read the Best of the Web citation you will see that other people in the press knew of Plame’s status before Libby alledgedly revealed it. I don’t know how her association with a cover firm was revealed but Libby is not alledged to have revealed it. Wilson may have revealed that part the story.

Once again, read more carefully what I wrote. If you make notations on an official document or any copy thereof, those comments become part of the official record. That is why investigators of security leaks, or crimes as for all copies and notes. Classified information is the property of the United States Government. If you write notes on a classified document or copy of said document those notes become part of the official record. To say that 9-11 Commission received the memorandum and nothing was lost would be wrong. Berger’s or other officials notes on the copy tell part of the story. Often the most important information on the document are the notes because those notes give indications of intended actions and decisions. So yes, Berger could have seriously effect national security by covering up malfeaseance in the Clinton admistration.

I tend to agree with Vegitus’ explanation: “lame attempt at airbrushing his (the Clinton’ Administration’s) feckless and insipid response to the rise of IslamoFacism in the 90’s.”

I’d agree for the most part, and add, “…in some cases almost as lame as the Bush administration’s response in the eight plus months leading up to 9/11, and without the excuse that this was a new administration.”

Bostonian — “Markus, by trying to argue that Berger could not have destroyed the official report, you revealed yourself as an unserious troll.”

Oh yes, the good ‘ole ad hominem, served with a smile to any critic of the partyline who dares to post at this site. FYI — I didn’t argue he COULD NOT destroy the report, I noted that he DID NOT destroy it, and my evidence was leftist troll BYRON YORK’s (!) statement that the 9/11 Committee RECEIVED ANOTHER COPY OF THE REPORT despite Sandy Berger’s best efforts.

Then it was brought to my attention that it was some notes scribbled on the side that were the likely source of Berger’s interest. I ask again: how do we know these notes exist, who wrote them, what authority did that person have to scribble on them, did the other copies include these scribblings, etc… Kevin P says that stealing notes or erasing tapes means you have something to hide. OK, fine, but then who wrote them?

Jerry seems to imply that the notes were written by Berger himself. Is this correct? Berger wrote notes to himself at the National Archives on the margins of a report about HIS actions as National Security chief, and it is THESE NOTES that the 9/11 commission needed to see? Why would such notes contain anything relevant? So far nobody has answered any of these questions, or provided me with links to any source that might.

So I’m still left with Jerry’s assertion that Berger compromised national security, even though there were several copies of the report he tried to steal. And when I ask for evidence that he did, people here respond by asking ME to provide evidence that he’s didn’t!

“And whitewashing a previous administration does indeed jeopardize us. If we don’t know what was done and what actually happened, how can we prevent ourselves from doing the same damned fool things?”

Again, the 9/11 Commission RECEIVED THE REPORT, along with other evidence of institutional shortcomings in our response to terrorism UNDER CLINTON, and included such criticism in its report.

Jerry — You’re obviously more up on the details of the Libby/Plame case than me. What grabbed my interest and prompted my initial post were your Berger accusations, not your ones related to Plame. But when you say “Libby is alleged to have revealed her connection with the CIA at the Langley HQ not as part of the firm” isn’t this irrelevent if revealing only her present status, in order to explain why Wilson was in Niger, results — intentions notwithstanding — in also exposing that firm and everyone else pretending to work for it? Or are you saying that the firm’s cover was blown by Aldrich’s revelation, not Libby’s?

The margin notes often include telling remarks and often indicate what someone knew, when they knew it, what they suggested to do about it. Yes, the original copy is preserved but whatever was written on the margins by the receiver of the note is gone forever. If I recieved a copy of a memo about a terrorist and I wrote on it “ignore this, we don’t have to worrry about it” and the warning turned out to be accurate, then the evidence of my bad judgement would be erased if the margin notes were destroyed with the copy. Why else would he have destroyed multiple copies of the same memo. Because of the margin notes. Berger took those copies out and he destroyed them. Why would he risk what he did if he wasn’t try to save somebodies butt? Ask Ollie North? You destroy records to hide information.Ask Rosemary Woods. You erase tapes to erase history that is embarrasing.