Powered by TypePad

« Stand By Your Man | Main | Can't Distinguish Between What You've Read and What You've Lived? (cont.) »

July 22, 2004


Barry D

Where are the footnotes? In Sandy Berger's socks, of course.


Does this also help explain why Clinton knew of the investigation and is involved in Berger's public spin campaign -- and Kerry didn't and isn't?

Brian O'Connell

The after-action report that was the subject of Berger's interest at the National Archives concerned the US response to the Millenium terrorist threat.

The after-action report referred to in what you've quoted seems to refer to a different one reviewing the 1998 cruise missile attacks on bin Laden.

All the media reports of what Berger took only mention the Millenium after-action report and its drafts, though this doesn't rule out others.


Actually, I'm starting to wonder if this hasn't all been done to protect Pakistan. A bipartisan coverup, if you will.


I would bet that it came out during Clinton's testimony as Berger and Lindsey were sitting right behind him.


Maybe the "leaks" were preemptive in another way. They've got us all focusing on the year 2000 celebration reports, when perhaps its this after-action report related to the 1998 missile strikes that was actually (and apparently, successfully) "disappeared" by Berger.



Brian - Millennium, 1998 cruise missile - what, are you deconstructing me?

Of course it is not the Millennium after-action report described in the media. But almost any questions people asked (where there any other problems with missing documents? Any problems with Sandy Berger?) would head towards "I can't comment - that is the subject of a criminal investigation."


My thoughts exactly Gonzo.

How many other things are "inadvertently" *cough*BULLSHIT*cough* missing? To use the Dem SOP (standard Operating Procedure), I don't know that documents weren't destroyed during the Clinton administration, but I think there should be an investigation immediately!

Brian O'Connell

TS: Apologies. My expectations caused me to misread what you're reporting here. My fault.

Of course there would have to be documentation on the 1998 after-action review. I guess the question becomes, does the National Archives have records of having had such documentation at one point? Someone with clearance ought to find out the answer.


We've had 2 enquiries in the UK (including the suicide of a senior weapons advisor under rather suspicious circumstances)what should have been answers to very serious concerns about the Iraq situation. Net Result: Whitewash and no accountability - it wasn't me...whatever your view on the legitimacy of the war ...for fuck sake somebody come out and be honest....


Sandy is also cited (along with oh-so-credible Clinton) in their finding on the Sudanese offers of (or attempts to offer) bin Laden.


unreal. what a skooch. meanwhile, we've got the story of sandy turning in his pants. lol.


Points out another reason to "leak" about the missing documents--that there are many missing documents. But now it's subject to an investigation, so nobody is talking, and the storyline becomes the spin--just the way the NYTimes is covering it. Isn't that the Lanny Davis school of leaking--you get the story out under the most favorable light, and then spin like hell. Talk about honest mistake, inadvertence, highly respected, dedicated public servant--all kinds of distractions that have nothing to do with removing top secret documents from the National Archives--a crime.

Also, regarding speculation about why Clinton knew, but Kerry didn't--Bruce Lindsey was contacted by the National Archives IG? or someone early on to prompt the return of docs. Surely he told Clinton.


No apology necessary, Brian, you caught me at my own game fair and square.

I am absolutely convinced that the minimum you can take away from this footnote story is that the leak may have been motivated by the commission, which would embarrass the NY Times and Terry McAuliffe, thereby making my day.

As to the maximum, well...

michael ledeen

a coupla nights ago CNN's crawl said that one of the missing documents referred to the 1993 WTC bombing. So there may be several...


Attention TM: Go to my post on the matter linked above ("Intriguing info on Burglar")... turns out Burglar misled the commission on the U.S.' knowledge of bin Laden and terror in '96.


Michael - Hmm... Bin Laden's connection to the '93 WTC attack is something Berger told the commission that the govt. knew nothing about in '96 when the Sudan is alleged to have attempted an offer of bin Laden to the govt.... I'm beginning to wonder if the much-discussed-at-Newsmax "offer" isn't a part of this.


I heard John Loftus say on the John Batchelor Show that some of the discarded materials may have related to US support for al Qaeda-linked groups fighting the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Pat Henry


Can you make Josh Marshall, the uncritical, wink-and-nod, Cheerleader of DNC, to read your analysis? What will take for you to do that? You can reach him at talk@talkingpointsmemo.com.

Pat Henry


What about the cover up of the terrorist bombing of Flight 800 around the same time? I read that Burgler didn't want a terrorist attack response from the Clinton's prior to the election and that some of the docs may have indicated said attack. Am I off base here?

The comments to this entry are closed.