Religions > Atheism > John Kerry Aid, Sandy Berger, Sells National Security Documents To Terrorists!!!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Matt Woods" |
| Date: |
19 Aug 2004 11:21:02 AM |
| Object: |
John Kerry Aid, Sandy Berger, Sells National Security Documents To Terrorists!!!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!! |
John Kerry Aid, Sandy Berger, Sells National Security Documents To
Terrorists!!!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/350fkind.asp
The Gap
Sandy Berger's pilfering of papers from the archive should be big
trouble for the Democrats. Why is the press AWOL?
by Hugh Hewitt
07/22/2004 12:00:00 AM
HERE ARE the two key sentence from yesterdays Washington Post:
"[Sandy] Berger returned two of the after-action drafts within days,
according to his attorneys. Other drafts of the after-action document,
they said, were apparently discarded."
As any lawyer who has ever argued over the contents of a brief knows,
the stuff that gets left out can be the most telling material of
all--indicative of prejudices and priorities, sensitivities and
credibility. Berger's sticky fingers have left a gap in the record of
the Clinton administration's response to the growing threat posed by
al Qaeda. Unless other files exist with all the same drafts and
handwritten notes that Berger destroyed, we will never be able to
conclude whether Berger's actions were simply another display of
fecklessness and recklessness on an issue of national security, or an
attempt to bleach the record of
Clinton-era malpractice on matters of terror.
Washington has had to judge gaps in the record before. "[A] few
minutes missing from a non-subpoenaed tape hardly seemed worth a
second thought," Richard Nixon wrote in his memoir of his reaction on
first learning that Rose Mary Woods had deleted a portion of the
famous tapes. Nixon would conclude "most people think that my
inability to explain the 18 and 1/2-minute gap is the most
unbelievable and insulting part of the whole of Watergate."
Imaginations ran wild, and Nixon's credibility never recovered.
Now crucial drafts of an important report are missing, and no one has
reported if exact duplicates--not "copies"--have been found. Unless
and until "red-lined" versions of the previous and following drafts
are
produced and compared to the "missing" drafts, we will never know what
vanished from the record in Berger's pants. Could it have been a
reference to Osama's flight from Sudan, or a warning of airplanes as
missiles? No one can know unless some other repository existed for all
of the drafts, and only if copies of all handwritten notes exist in
that same file. The trouble with widely circulated papers is that
principals make handwritten notations on all of them, which are then
returned to the central record keeper. Every "copy" is an original if
a note has been made in the margin.
A COMMISSION STAFFER said with certainty that no gaps exist in the
record, but how could they possibly know this if the Department of
Justice still has the matter under investigation and if handwritten
notes are involved? Further, if handwritten notes appeared on the
originals or copies that Berger walked off with, the commission would
have to be certain that the "copies" they have been provided were
copies of exactly what Berger took away and "lost." Read this
laughable, incredible statement from the commission, quoted in the Los
Angeles Times: "Al Felzenberg, a spokesman for the Sept. 11
commission, said the panel had been given access to all copies of
drafts that were missing, and thought that the integrity of its work
had not been compromised. 'We had access to copies of everything we
are reading about,' he said."
Reporters who know what a paragraph or two can do to a story and who
have seen what a handwritten note can do to a case, are walking away
from this story, calmed by the assurances from Berger's lawyer, his
friends, and a desperate-not-to-be-discredited commission. Was Rose
Woods this well treated? If Condoleezza Rice had stuffed her blouse
full of various drafts of pre- 9/11 terrorism reports and then
admitted to sloppy work that resulted in the loss of these docs, would
promises of copies suffice to quiet a crazed White House press room?
Still wondering about the potential significance of a single draft, or
small changes between drafts? Recall that on January 11, 2001, the Los
Angeles Times deleted a reference to Juanita Broaddrick from a George
Will column on the legacy of Bill Clinton. I caught the censorship on
air, and the wave of reader outrage that followed forced an admission
of guilt and an apology from the paper. The Times's attempt to hide a
single phrase from its readers told you volumes about the paper-and
about the significance of Broaddrick to the Clinton legacy.
We will probably never know what Berger erased from the record. The
idea that he smuggled sensitive documents and then "lost" them is
absurd. If there were "damning admissions against interest," as trial
lawyers like to say, among the papers, Berger probably could be
counted on to arrange the carrying away and return of enough paper as
to obscure the trail and cloak the reference. Why has the
investigation gone on so long? There is a complex paper trail here,
and hopefully the government is attempting to recreate everything that
was in the archive before Berger scarred it. That will take a long
time, perhaps even requiring the fetching of computers and the
recreation of electronic transmissions.
But eventually the public needs to know not what was attempted to be
excised from the archive--it may be too sensitive to reveal--but only
if there was information unique to the draft(s) that Berger lost. If
there was, Berger wasn't being sloppy. He was being precise.
Finally, the Kerry campaign quickly assured everyone that it knew
nothing. It is interesting that Nixon tried to persuade the public of
the very same point. You don't believe Nixon, do you? "[T]o this day
many people are not aware that Rose was exonerated by the Special
Prosecutor in regard to the 181/2-minute gap," Nixon noted in his
memoir:
Rose Woods testified under oath concerning the 18 and 1/2 minute gap
before a court hearing and the grand jury. In the hearing she was
subjected to hours of merciless cross-examination on this issue. On
July 17, 1974, Leon Jaworski informed Rose's attorney that no case had
been developed of any illegal action of any kind by Rose, and that no
charges would be made against her. He said that his assistant, Richard
Ben-Veniste, agreed.
Has Berger been before a grand jury yet? Is Ben-Veniste as aggressive
on gaps in the record today as he was 30 years ago?
Hugh Hewitt is the host of a nationally syndicated radio show, and
author most recently of "If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat: Crushing
the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends Upon It".
His daily blog can be found at HughHewitt.com.
------------
Liberals Hate America!
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
