Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Dem Pre-Panic Watch | Main | Blair Was Brilliant »

July 20, 2004

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e200d83456dce569e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What Would Witness Intimidation Sound Like?:

» BERGER BASH QUESTIONS from JunkYardBlog
From InstaPundit: Q: Who covertly removes top secret documents? A: Spies. Q: So who's he spying for? A: If we're lucky, the Kerry campaign, or the company he's chairman of. Q: If we're not lucky? A: Let's hope we're lucky.... [Read More]

» Par for the Course from Overtaken by Events
Only Bill Clinton would find the theft and subsequent loss of sensitive classified material amusing. Or maybe he's just laughing... [Read More]

» Par for the Course from Overtaken by Events
Only Bill Clinton would find the theft and subsequent loss of sensitive classified material amusing. Or maybe he's just laughing... [Read More]

» Par for the Course from Overtaken by Events
Only Bill Clinton would find the theft and subsequent loss of sensitive classified material amusing. Or maybe he's just laughing... [Read More]

» Par for the Course from Overtaken by Events
Only Bill Clinton would find the theft and subsequent loss of sensitive classified material amusing. Or maybe he's just laughing... [Read More]

» BERGER BASH QUESTIONS from JunkYardBlog
From InstaPundit: Q: Who covertly removes top secret documents? A: Spies. Q: So who's he spying for? A: If we're lucky, the Kerry campaign, or the company he's chairman of. Q: If we're not lucky? A: Let's hope we're lucky.... [Read More]

» BERGER BASH QUESTIONS from JunkYardBlog
From InstaPundit: Q: Who covertly removes top secret documents? A: Spies. Q: So who's he spying for? A: If we're lucky, the Kerry campaign, or the company he's chairman of. Q: If we're not lucky? A: Let's hope we're lucky.... [Read More]

» BERGER BASH QUESTIONS from JunkYardBlog
From Silflay Hraka (via InstaPundit): Q: Who covertly removes top secret documents? A: Spies. Q: So who's he spying for? A: If we're lucky, the Kerry campaign, or the company he's chairman of. Q: If we're not lucky? A: Let's... [Read More]

Comments

The Kid

My goodness! A Clinton apologist surfacing to do a Linda Tripp on civil servants – employees of the National Archives – who were simply trying to do their jobs. Who’d ‘ve ever thunk?

Just look at the cast of characters creeping back on stage: Lanny Davis (former Special Counsel to the President and now partner at Orrick [no, the law firm]), Bruce Lindsey (former Deputy White House Counsel and now just Bill Clinton’s lawyer), Lanny Bruer (former Special Counsel to the President and now just Berger’s lawyer), and others, I’m sure, who will emerge from the shadows over the next several days.

Where do we put David Gergen (reputedly Republican and former advisor to Clinton) after his performance this morning?

You know, I’d go out and have a nice stiff drink right now to help think this thing out, but I fear that as I sat down on the stool the barkeeper would turn around and I’d be looking Craig Livingstone right in the eye.

That’s no stranger nor more improbable than what’s up with Berger.

bill

What was in Sandy Bergers'pants and how did he feel about it?

narciso

You mean, Lanny Davis, the Pakistan lobbyist, in the White House; in the mid 90s, and in the late
90s, both periods when the ISI sponsored Taliban
& affiliated Al Queda, were very active. Berger,
had a hand in these documents; probably was the
classifying authority. This combined with Schlum
berger director and fmr CIA Director John Deutch;
the 1990s version of Turner, known for the second
largest purge of Company assets; and the inadver
tent disclosure of Top Secret info; including
possibly the remaining US assets in the region.

Pixy Misa

The bit I love is how they are vehemently denying that Berger put documents in his socks. They've admitted that he stuffed documents in his pants, but NO SOCKS WERE INVOLVED!!! HOW DARE YOU IMPLY THAT A FINE UPSTANDING FORMER NSA WOULD STUFF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS IN HIS SOCKS! YOU BASTARDS!!!!

TM

What was in Sandy Bergers'pants and how did he feel about it?

I'm begging them, please don't show us a smoking gun.

Dan

Socks, pants, whatever. The handwritten notes, wherever they were stuffed, are a red herring. Berger will cop to this - he's admitted he took them intentionally - take a slap on the wrist and then we will be admonished to "move on". Anyone who continues to raise the issue of the early drafts of the Millenium After-Action reports will be dismissed as part of the Republican Attack Machine, the vast right-wing conspiracy, etc.

We've seen this all before, and it always seems to work.

Dan

Socks, pants, whatever. The handwritten notes, wherever they were stuffed, are a red herring. Berger will cop to this - he's admitted he took them intentionally - take a slap on the wrist and then we will be admonished to "move on". Anyone who continues to raise the issue of the early drafts of the Millenium After-Action reports will be dismissed as part of the Republican Attack Machine, the vast right-wing conspiracy, etc.

We've seen this all before, and it always seems to work.

Dan

Socks, pants, whatever. The handwritten notes, wherever they were stuffed, are a red herring. Berger will cop to this - he's admitted he took them intentionally - take a slap on the wrist and then we will be admonished to "move on". Anyone who continues to raise the issue of the early drafts of the Millenium After-Action reports will be dismissed as part of the Republican Attack Machine, the vast right-wing conspiracy, etc.

We've seen this all before, and it always seems to work.

BlogDog

To answer The Kid's question: Gergen, formerly just a goggle-eyed melon-head is now a reliable DemoBot.

Pouncer

In defense of Slick Willie, he and his team were, as I read it, NOT laughing about the current misplacement of classified documents. He reports that "we all laughed" -- during the Clinton administration -- at the constant mess on N.S.-Advisors Berger's White House desk.

As to the issue of socks -- the "socks" issue helps clarify the "pants" issue. If we have "pants" alone it is reasonable to assume Berger put stuff in his pants POCKETS. And a person habitually sloppy about classified documents might unthinkingly put such a document into a pocket the same way he might a credit card slip or grocery list. Sloppy, but not dishonest in intent. If, however, he was deliberately attempting to walk out with documents without being discovered, he might have put stuff in his socks and inside the WAISTBAND of his pants, under his shirt -- rather as he might carry a pistol. So the socks issue goes to attempts to evade becomes the "smoking gun". It is the key charge and deserves to be sourced.

Finally, as to notes: It is not clear to me if the "handwritten notes" were someone else's notes, Berger's own notes made and filed during his original tenure of office, or new notes he had just made during his review of old documents. Again, if these were fresh notes -- talking points -- outlining an overview or pattern derived from the old documents, then it's more reasonable to credit Berger with sloppiness. HIS OWN notes had never been officially classified -- though the technical legal standard treats such handwritten aids to the thought process no differently than a xerox or microfilm copy of classified documents. As such he might have tucked his notes into a pants pocket without thinking.

Possible. Believable.

Sloppy.

I must join a number of current and former holders of security clearances in noting that had _I_ been discovered making such a mistake during my period of service the consequences to my career, pocketbook, and freedom of movement would have been severe. That the guy at the top, theoretically responsible to enforce such laws upon peons such as I, might feel himself entitled to skate blithely over such rules is also far from unheard of, and believable.

But it is still sloppy and does him and his cause no credit at all.

The Kid

Pouncer makes a useful points about socks indicating a willful attempt to deceive that “pants” alone does not.

There may be a kinder, gentler explanation.
1. It could well be that the National Archives’ employee was sympathetic and conflicted after seeing a powerful personage concealing archive material, and in fact used the word “socks” to help protect Bergers image.
2. It could well be that Berger’s mouthpieces’ frequent objection to “socks” is founded in fact.

These two cases are true if and only if Berger were inserting the documents into the waistband of his pantyhose.

You decide, I don't want to think about it.

Dan

Does anyone know at this point weather there are existing copies of the documents Berger lost? If there are, I would be more inclined to buy the sloppiness explaination. Berger had to know the security process well enough to know he would be caught so "loosing" one or two copies of many copies would hardly seem worth the risk. If he was just trying to pass contents along to someone else, his handwritten notes would seem to have been sufficient and much less suspicious.

Dan

Does anyone know at this point weather there are existing copies of the documents Berger lost? If there are, I would be more inclined to buy the sloppiness explaination. Berger had to know the security process well enough to know he would be caught so "loosing" one or two copies of many copies would hardly seem worth the risk. If he was just trying to pass contents along to someone else, his handwritten notes would seem to have been sufficient and much less suspicious.

Soul

Someone really needs to remember that all of us have a right to know who are accusers are. This isn't "witness intimidation" it's a constitutional right.
The big question is why you believe the most sensationalistic accusations, none of which are confirmed, or substantiated.
Of course, the reason is obvious. You want to believe the worst, so you do. Damn the truth. I never notice you getting this indignant about the convineint destruction of bush's gaurd records, or the inability of Texas to produce it's legally mandated copies of those records.
At worst, this was criminal for the purpose of writing a book, at best sloppiness. These were copies, not originals, nothing is missing. That the right makes a big deal of this is indicicative of their lack of ideas. They'd rather throw mud than tell us what to expect in a second bush term.

megapotamus

Ah, soul, actually some documents are missing, that's per Berger that he inadvertently discarded several draft copies of the report. At best. If you want to know why some folks believe the worst... well, in my case it is experience. Believe the worst of Democrats and Leftists in general, you will not be dissappointed and the "worst" here is... a book? That's a new one on me, who was writing a book? That's a new one. What is truly funny is that you indict such a viewpoint yet adopt it yourself re the Bush ANG and why do I get the feeling that you are all to happy to believe, oh that Bush/Cheney went to war in Iraq to boost Halliburton, for example? Is there ANY evidence of THAT Commie smear job? Typical. Typical.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon

  • Lee Child, Kindle short story
  • Lee Child
  • Gary Taubes

Traffic

Wilson/Plame