Berger was just an 'informal' advisor.

[Zhukov]

Berger, who yesterday quit his position as an informal adviser to the Kerry campaign

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200407210837.asp

Informal? Ah, let the spin begin.


In a wide-ranging and exclusive interview with Bisnow on Business released today, former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, now a chief foreign policy adviser to Senator John Kerry, says, in answer to a question about how long a "substantial U.S. force presence" might remain in Iraq: "I can certainly imagine us having a force there in three years. I hope it will be a smaller force."

http://news.corporate.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20040709/09jul2004195058.html

The meeting with Berger, national security adviser to President Clinton, was the second such policy gathering for Kerry as he stayed close to home, recuperating from shoulder surgery

http://www.boston.com/news/politics...4/04/04/kerry_and_berger_discuss_the_mideast/

surrounded by Clinton-era officials, including former ambassador to the UN Richard Holbrook and National Security Advisor Samuel Berger, Kerry seems to believe that he can jump back in where Clinton left off

http://www.merip.org/newspaper_opeds/oped_cook051004.html

When they worked for the Clinton administration, Kerry advisers Sandy Berger and Jamie Rubin argued that Iraq helped al Qaida make deadly VX gas at a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/20/163716.shtml

here he is annoucing policy

Berger: It would be a big mistake for them (NK) to not engage. President Kerry would build on any progress that is made.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200406231334.asp

Among the first things Kerry would do as President, says Sandy Berger, who was a National Security Adviser under Bill Clinton and has consulted with Kerry on the subject,

http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,598494,00.html

 

[Annie]

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200407210837.asp

Informal? Ah, let the spin begin.


In a wide-ranging and exclusive interview with Bisnow on Business released today, former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, now a chief foreign policy adviser to Senator John Kerry, says, in answer to a question about how long a "substantial U.S. force presence" might remain in Iraq: "I can certainly imagine us having a force there in three years. I hope it will be a smaller force."

http://news.corporate.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20040709/09jul2004195058.html

The meeting with Berger, national security adviser to President Clinton, was the second such policy gathering for Kerry as he stayed close to home, recuperating from shoulder surgery

http://www.boston.com/news/politics...4/04/04/kerry_and_berger_discuss_the_mideast/

surrounded by Clinton-era officials, including former ambassador to the UN Richard Holbrook and National Security Advisor Samuel Berger, Kerry seems to believe that he can jump back in where Clinton left off

http://www.merip.org/newspaper_opeds/oped_cook051004.html

When they worked for the Clinton administration, Kerry advisers Sandy Berger and Jamie Rubin argued that Iraq helped al Qaida make deadly VX gas at a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/20/163716.shtml

here he is annoucing policy

Berger: It would be a big mistake for them (NK) to not engage. President Kerry would build on any progress that is made.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200406231334.asp

Among the first things Kerry would do as President, says Sandy Berger, who was a National Security Adviser under Bill Clinton and has consulted with Kerry on the subject,

http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,598494,00.html

 

[lilcountriegal]

A little off topic and somewhat of a question/comment. While getting ready for work this morning, i had the Today show on in the background and they were interviewing John Kerry. (Lord, he needs more Botox). Anyway... the question posed to him was "Were you aware that Berger was being investigated?".... his answer was "No, absolutely not.".

Wasn't it semi-known in Washington for at least 8-10 months that this guy was being investigated?

 

[freeandfun1]

A little off topic and somewhat of a question/comment. While getting ready for work this morning, i had the Today show on in the background and they were interviewing John Kerry. (Lord, he needs more Botox). Anyway... the question posed to him was "Were you aware that Berger was being investigated?".... his answer was "No, absolutely not.".

Wasn't it semi-known in Washington for at least 8-10 months that this guy was being investigated?

I don't think it was "semi-known". I am beginning to think that only those involved in the investigation knew about it. So, does Clinton's knowing about it indicate what the investigation might really involve?

Being that it was an investigation about missing "secret" documents, etc., only those in a "need-to-know" basis would know, as the investigation would be "secret" because of the sensitivity of what is "missing".

JMHO

 

[lilcountriegal]

Thanks for clearing that up for me free... I had assumed wrong then.

 

[dilloduck]

Me too-----It sure seemed to come as no surprise to a whole lotta people.

 

[UsaPride]

I don't think it was "semi-known". I am beginning to think that only those involved in the investigation knew about it. So, does Clinton's knowing about it indicate what the investigation might really involve?

Being that it was an investigation about missing "secret" documents, etc., only those in a "need-to-know" basis would know, as the investigation would be "secret" because of the sensitivity of what is "missing".

JMHO

Wouldn't the fact that Berger was Kerry's advisor and Kerry running for President, and Berger being investigated for this, wouldn't that put Kerry in the "need to know" basis? If Berger's being investigated for this for whatever many months, KNOWING he's guilty of this, whether that be "accidently" or otherwise, wouldn't they know that when this did come out it would hurt Kerry's chances? I'm sorry, but I think Kerry did know, my opinion of course. They can't be THIS stupid.

 

[freeandfun1]

Wouldn't the fact that Berger was Kerry's advisor and Kerry running for President, and Berger being investigated for this, wouldn't that put Kerry in the "need to know" basis? If Berger's being investigated for this for whatever many months, KNOWING he's guilty of this, whether that be "accidently" or otherwise, wouldn't they know that when this did come out it would hurt Kerry's chances? I'm sorry, but I think Kerry did know, my opinion of course. They can't be THIS stupid.

I am not sure. Remember, it is POSSIBLE that Kerry was under investigation too and just didn't know it..... The admin might have tried to keep this as hushed as possible. Especially if they think they have something big on either Kerry, Berger OR EVEN CLINTON! I think this could be a lot bigger than we are being led to believe. But then again, maybe it is the weed.

Remember, in the beginning, Watergate was nothing and look what ended up happening!

 

[UsaPride]

But then again, maybe it is the weed.

:cof:
It just seems weird that not even Kerry would know. Good gracious, Clinton knew. Wouldn't you think that someone would have let Kerry in on the little secret since this man is helping Kerry? Or at least NOT let Berger anywhere near the Kerry campaign, distance himself, you know, HE knew HE was being investgated. Something just doesn't seem right. I swear I feel like we're talking about a new movie or something. Just wierd!

 

[Annie]

I am not sure. Remember, it is POSSIBLE that Kerry was under investigation too and just didn't know it..... The admin might have tried to keep this as hushed as possible. Especially if they think they have something big on either Kerry, Berger OR EVEN CLINTON! I think this could be a lot bigger than we are being led to believe. But then again, maybe it is the weed.

Remember, in the beginning, Watergate was nothing and look what ended up happening!

Indeed it may be bigger, there are way too many links here. You need to go to the url: http://instapundit.com/

Scroll down to 1st post of the day!

GREG DJEREJIAN says that The New York Times has no shame in its treatment of the Berger story:


Rarely have I seen a major newspaper play a story in such brazenly partisan fashion.

It truly beggars belief.

Check out today's lead NYT story on the unfolding Sandy Berger scandal by Eric Lichtblau and Dave Sanger.

Boy, is it a whopper. . . . Your baffled NYT readers might be excused, at this juncture, from thinking George Bush himself was stuffing docs down his socks and trousers.


Read his dissection. I think this tells us that they're really scared that this story has real substance, and legs. As with Pravda, you have to read between the lines. And this Washington Post story may explain why they're scared:


Last Oct. 2, former Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger stayed huddled over papers at the National Archives until 8 p.m.

What he did not know as he labored through that long Thursday was that the same Archives employees who were solicitously retrieving documents for him were also watching their important visitor with a suspicious eye.

After Berger's previous visit, in September, Archives officials believed documents were missing. This time, they specially coded the papers to more easily tell whether some disappeared, said government officials and legal sources familiar with the case. . . .

The government source said the Archives employees were deferential toward Berger, given his prominence, but were worried when he returned to view more documents on Oct. 2. They devised a coding system and marked the documents they knew Berger was interested in canvassing, and watched him carefully. They knew he was interested in all the versions of the millennium review, some of which bore handwritten notes from Clinton-era officials who had reviewed them. At one point an Archives employee even handed Berger a coded draft and asked whether he was sure he had seen it.

At the end of the day, Archives employees determined that that draft and all four or five other versions of the millennium memo had disappeared from the files, this source said.


This makes the "inadvertence" defense look less plausible, and the uniqueness of each draft -- with different people's handwritten notes -- explains why he might have taken them all.

No wonder the Times people are frantically spinning. Ed Morrissey has more thoughts, and also links this story on more suspicious-sounding behavior:


WASHINGTON - Former national security adviser Sandy Berger repeatedly persuaded monitors assigned to watch him review top secret documents to break the rules and leave him alone, sources said yesterday.

Berger, accused of smuggling some of the secret files out of the National Archives, got the monitors out of the high-security room by telling them he had to make sensitive phone calls.

Berger also took "lots of bathroom breaks" that apparently aroused some suspicion, the source added.

It is standard security procedure to constantly monitor anyone with a security clearance who examines the type of code-word classified files stored in the underground archives vault in the building where tourists view the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Asked if guards left Berger alone in the classified reading room while he made calls, archives spokeswoman Susan Cooper replied, "I'm not going to say I haven't heard that."


Curiouser and curiouser. I suppose that it's possible that this could all be innocent -- but it sure doesn't sound that way, does it?

UPDATE: Martin Peretz writes in The New Republic:


I do not like Sandy Berger; and I have not liked him since the first time we met, long ago during the McGovern campaign, not because of his politics since I more or less shared them then, but for his hauteur. . . . Still, here's his story about the filched classified materials dealing with the foiled Al Qaeda millennium terrorist bombing plot from the National Archives: He inadvertently took home documents and notes about documents that he was not permitted to take from the archives; secondly, he inadvertently didn't notice the papers in his possession when he got home and actually looked at them; and, thirdly, he inadvertently discarded some of these same files so that they are now missing.

Gone, in fact. One of his lawyers attributes this behavior to "sloppiness," which may better explain his career as Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser and certainly describes his presentation of self in everyday life. But it is not an explanation of his conduct in the archives or, for that matter, at home. . . .

So my question is: Did Berger, who knew that he was under scrutiny since last fall, alert Kerry to the combustible fact that he was the subject of a criminal probe by the Justice Department and the FBI? My guess is not. Kerry is far too smart, too responsible to have kept him around had he known. But if Kerry didn't know, it tells you a lot about Berger, too much, really.


(Emphasis added in all cases.) Yes. And, I should note, the New York Times' frantic spinning of such a major story tells us a lot about the Times. Too much, really.

ANOTHER UPDATE: More disappearing documents here. Interesting.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Dave Johnson finds the phone-call bit intriguing: "Who was he calling and what where they talking about? The Feds should subpoena his Cell phone records. Then they need to see who that person called. This story has legs." Perhaps they've already done that.

posted at 08:30 AM by Glenn Reynolds

 

[freeandfun1]

:cof:
It just seems weird that not even Kerry would know. Good gracious, Clinton knew. Wouldn't you think that someone would have let Kerry in on the little secret since this man is helping Kerry? Or at least NOT let Berger anywhere near the Kerry campaign, distance himself, you know, HE knew HE was being investgated. Something just doesn't seem right. I swear I feel like we're talking about a new movie or something. Just wierd!

The reason why I think Kerry might not have known is this. Why would he put him on his advisory staff if he knows he is under investigation for something that is going to come out later? I think that Kerry didn't know but that Clinton did, cuz I think Clinton is who put Berger up to doing what he did.

JMHO.

 

[freeandfun1]

Thanks for that info Kat..... very, very interesting.......

I really do think there is a lot more to this than "meets the press". Perhaps that is why Bush has been so calm (as well as those around him) even though the poll numbers don't look all that great. You know, we are getting close to October!

Can we say -
OCTOBER SURPISE!?!

 

[UsaPride]

The reason why I think Kerry might not have known is this. Why would he put him on his advisory staff if he knows he is under investigation for something that is going to come out later? I think that Kerry didn't know but that Clinton did, cuz I think Clinton is who put Berger up to doing what he did.

JMHO.

You may be right. Still, wouldn't that mean since Clinton knew it, and Berger himself knew it, then they were putting Kerry in jeopardy by not telling him, or even allowing Berger to be on the Kerry team? You know Clinton and Berger knew this would come out sometime. Hmmmm, so many questions, LOL!!

 

[freeandfun1]

You may be right. Still, wouldn't that mean since Clinton knew it, and Berger himself knew it, then they were putting Kerry in jeopardy by not telling him, or even allowing Berger to be on the Kerry team? You know Clinton and Berger knew this would come out sometime. Hmmmm, so many questions, LOL!!

Very good point. This could end up hurting the Kerry campaign and that would keep Hillary's hopes alive in '08! Hmmmmm........ very interesting.......

 

[UsaPride]

Very good point. This could end up hurting the Kerry campaign and that would keep Hillary's hopes alive in '08! Hmmmmm........ very interesting.......

I think so too!

 

[Annie]

Thanks for that info Kat..... very, very interesting.......

I really do think there is a lot more to this than "meets the press". Perhaps that is why Bush has been so calm (as well as those around him) even though the poll numbers don't look all that great. You know, we are getting close to October!

Can we say -
OCTOBER SURPISE!?!

Did you see the denBeste article Free? You'll like it!

 

[freeandfun1]

Did you see the denBeste article Free? You'll like it!

Very nice link. Thanks! I read it and I believe he is right on target! :firing: