What was Sandy Berger trying to hide?

from JoeUser Forums

A report issued today shows that Sandy Berger, Clintons former national security advisor stole classified documents related to terrorism, hid them under a construction trailer, and tried to retrieve them later.  What's even more disturbing is some believe the national archives cannot account for all the documents.

What was the purpose behind the stealing of classified documents related to his former boss, and the Sept. 11 commission.  Was he trying to coverup or hide something?  It's no secret Clinton bungled attempts to capture/kill bin laden, and his weakness on terrorism is documented, but was there more to this than what was originally thought?  Why would a former national security adviser to the President steal classified documents?

It's a shame the media never took too much interest in this story.  Of course, if this was a republican, or someone from the Bush administration, you would never have heard the end of it.  It's also a shame republicans today don't have the courage to push this either.

 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061221/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/berger_documents

 

 

democrat
3,803 views 8 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

Good ol' Sandy was just working on protecting the Clinton legacy (and his own).

I'd still be somewhat shocked if there wasn't some hard, documented, proof that Clinton absolutely blew a chance to get Bin Laden.  He denies it, gets adamant about it, and says "at least I tried..." (in the face of Chris Wallace), but the fact is his lack of results is what we've been paying for ever since.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
It wouldn't shock me in the least.  His performance on Fox News was just that......a performance.  Although I'm still waiting for the liberal outrage to come.
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

"at least I tried..."

The epitomy of a liberal.  Results do not matter, just intentions.  Clinton is no more a moderate than Reagan was.

As for Sandy Burgler, one word.  Legacy.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
The inadvertent (maybe intentional, we'll see) disclosure of a (hardly) covert agent's identity warrants a Special Prosecutor and endless witch hunting by the media.

The theft & destruction of classified documents pertinent to the 9/11 Commission's inquiry by someone who knows what he's doing gets acknowledged briefly then forgotten & the perp gets a slap on the wrist.

And people have the nerve to say the media is not biased. That it's the Republicans who have fostered a "culture of corruption." Right.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Exactly.  Is there anybody who wants to tell us there is no bias for democrats in the media?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Any one of the foks who work in the intelligence community woud be breaking rocks in Leavenworth Detention barracks if we had done something like this. A fine?? Community Service????? Three years without access to classified? WTF! I read this and it makes me want to puke.
Kind of how listening to Slick willie makes me want to puke.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

Any one of the foks who work in the intelligence community woud be breaking rocks in Leavenworth Detention barracks if we had done something like this. A fine?? Community Service????? Three years without access to classified?

I still want to know WHY he did this.  What was he specifically trying to cover-up?

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
The following statement always causes the after reaction.

First statement: There is NO LIBERAL media bias in news reporting"

My reaction and statement.



SNORT!!!!1 oh hahahahahahahahahah oh oh oh!!! oh God. hahahahahahahahahah please stop! hahahahahahah,, snortttttttttttt!!!!!!!1 oh my stomach!!!! ohhhhhhhh !!!!!!! hahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!! gulp.... snort!!!! hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!