F-National Security Advisor in DEEP doo-doo

Commander Cool said:
I honestly haven't been following this story, so I don't know about the reports that he was stuffing classified documents in his pants. I don't imagine that would be very comfortable. :)

Also there are reports he had put them in his socks.

At least if he was putting them in his pants, he can claim he was aiming for his pockets...
 
According to Drudge, this story was "buried" at the Times, a "low priority" at the Washington Post, "hidden" at the LA Times, but "played up" at USA Today.
 
I hope he shares a cell with who ever in the white house who outed that CIA agent.


I can't stand when these guys play tit for tat with national secruity


Virgil
 
Virgil said:
I hope he shares a cell with who ever in the white house who outed that CIA agent.

Former or current occupant? I'm personally willing to bet on the former but who knows. Still, we don't know the guilty party in that matter. In this one we certainly do. The extent of the guilt is all that is in question.
 
The documents-in-socks part is very strange -- apparently acknowledged as fact by Berger.
Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks
fox news
An innocent explanation is difficult to imagine.
 
varwoche said:
The documents-in-socks part is very strange -- apparently acknowledged as fact by Berger.
An innocent explanation is difficult to imagine.

A minor nitpick--the items tucked into his clothing were his own personal notes, not the documents themselves.

I don't think that really gets him out of anything, though.
 
gnome said:
A minor nitpick--the items tucked into his clothing were his own personal notes, not the documents themselves.

I don't think that really gets him out of anything, though.

Even were it only notes, then they automatically take on the classification of the documents from which they were gleened. The archive custodian's job is to serialize and log them according to their source. What happens to them after that depends on their nature.

Still, I think your minor nit-pick may turn out to be untrue. It's early in the life of this event (very early by my reckoning) but some sources have the FBI recovering actual documents from his home, not notes, or not ONLY notes.

But you're right about one thing: legally, it doesn't matter.

I just heard Bill Clinton comment about this. I'm not sure I have the quote right but it went along the lines of, 'Well, he had no use for the documents -- as far as I'm concerned -- so his most innocent explaination is probably the correct one'.

Is that a classified document in your pants or are you just happy to see me?
 
Rob Lister: Even were it only notes, then they automatically take on the classification of the documents from which they were gleened.
Not quite. Certainly, to be prudent, one should treat the notes as if they are classified at the same level until they are reviewed.

However, excerpts of classified documents are not inherently classified. An appropriate reviewing authority would determine the classification of the notes.

Another minor nitpick... sorry 'bout that. :)
 
from Rob Lister:
Fox is reporting that he was observed, by the archive staff, stuffing 'certain documents' down his pants (not to be confused with pant pockets), and that on his next visit they marked his requested documents and then found them 'missing'.
Fox is reporting? Is anybody else, without referencing Fox? (Or The Timesbeing referenced by Fox? Any non-Murdoch source? I love this:

from Fox News:
However, some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of Al Qaeda terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing, officials and lawyers said.
Officials and lawyers, doncha love 'em? Especially anonymous ones.

Glenn Miller is still missing. Were they missing before? What is the connection between Berger and these drafts? Did he get them and then they went missing, or did he ask for them (because he remembered their existence) and they turned out to have gone the way of Bush's service records?
 
CapelDodger said:
from Rob Lister:Fox is reporting? Is anybody else,

The reason I used a google search link rather than a particular link was to avoid just such media-bashing. You can bash the entire media if you want, or google for referencing them.

Hey, it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

Maybe a search warrant on Condie Rice's house is in order, eh?
 
aerocontrols said:
Also there are reports he had put them in his socks.

At least if he was putting them in his pants, he can claim he was aiming for his pockets...

I don't see what the big deal is about some of them being "accidentally" destroyed... after all, if you ran the National Archives, would YOU be in a hurry to retrieve documents that have spent a few hours nestling in Berger's jockeys? I know I wouldn't.
 
I prefer to stuff national security documents in my underware for various personal reasons...


however to be fair...has the FBI found the person that leaked the id of that CIA spy?

it seems to me that this potenial crime is serious, however this guy is co opperating with the federal police. is the White House cooperating with the investigation about the CIA spy scandal?



I'm more inclined to belive this guy over the spy leak because he has addmitted to it and is cooperating. whereas the White house has no reason to help out the FBI.


Mr Bush maybe just as innocent however he reaps as he sows.


Virgil
 
Code-word material in his socks?

If true, I can't wait to hear his explanation for that.

Jesus, I can't even begin to imagine what people would be saying if anyone from the current administration had done this.
 
Jesus, I can't even begin to imagine what people would be saying if anyone from the current administration had done this.

Gosh, I don't know. What WOULD people be saying if anyone from the current administration had done this?

Let's Find Out, Shall We?

Bush military records destroyed


Mr Bush trained as a pilot in the National Guard
Documents that could have decided a dispute over President George W Bush's days in the military 30 years ago have been destroyed, the Pentagon says.
Microfilm containing the pertinent payroll records for the Texas-based Air National Guard had been damaged and could not be salvaged, it said.

Democrats have accused the president of ducking the draft call to Vietnam in favour of less dangerous duties.

The White House has released some records in a bid to refute the charges.


'No back-up copies'

The destroyed files included President Bush's pay records for two three-month periods in 1969 and 1972, a Department of Defence statement said.

"Searches for back-up paper copies of the missing records were unsuccessful," it added.

The 1969 period is not contentious for Mr Bush, as it is already known he was training to be a pilot at the time.

But in 1972 he moved to Alabama to work on a political campaign, and opponents say he failed to turn up for guard duties during this time.

'Beyond doubt'

The lost records might have thrown some light on whether he fulfilled his legal commitment.

Doubts were first raised nationally about Mr Bush's service during the 2000 presidential campaign and the issue has resurfaced as Mr Bush fights for re-election.

Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, has said Mr Bush must come clean on what he did.

A White House spokeswoman has said the documents already released prove beyond doubt that President Bush "fulfilled his duties in the National Guard at the time".

'Inadvertent destruction'

The microfilm containing the records apparently disintegrated as staff were trying to preserve it from decay.

The loss was announced by the Pentagon's Office of Freedom of Information and Security Review in letters responding to media demands for full access to Mr Bush's records.

"The Defence Finance and Accounting Service has advised of the inadvertent destruction of microfilm containing certain National Guard payroll records," said the letter, signed by the office's chief C Y Talbott.

It added that in 1996 and 1997 the microfilm records of "numerous service members" from the first quarter of 1969 and the third quarter of 1972 were ruined - Mr Bush's among them.

Mr Bush trained as a pilot while a member of the Texas and Alabama air national guard but never flew in combat.

He left the national guard in 1973 with an honourable discharge to attend Harvard Business School.

But first, explain how Berger could have gotten the stuff in the first place? I mean, a person with top security clearance, a previous cabinet post, and personal relationships with personnel at this place, allowed to go in and retrieve notes that he himself had written?

Oh, wait a minute........
 
Dorian Gray said:
Gosh, I don't know. What WOULD people be saying if anyone from the current administration had done this?

You are pathetic. You are comparing the Berger theft (which there is no dispute over) to a wild speculation you have no proof of. You are not a skeptic, goodbye.

Take a look at Dorain Gray folks, this is the sort of thinking we should all shun together. If you want to hate Bush, that's fine. When your hate gets in the way of your critical thining skills (assuming you had any in the first place) its time to re-examine yourself.

Also, the idea of reciprocal criticism on this subject just baffles me. That implies there is some sort of partisanship in this which is something I haven't seen. The only partisanship I have seen is people's unsupported allegations that somehow Berger was stealing memo's that made the Clinton administration look bad.

This allegation may be true. However, from the news we have so far the claim is unsupported.
 
oh wow it's all just a zaney situation we should just get over already !

thegangoffour.jpg


just wait....the daily show will make a funny about how silly the whole idea of any wrongdoing is and all will be okay again !
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
You all seem to be down playing my "wacky misunderstanding" theory.

No one is talking about it because it's so non-controversial. I mean, if it's probably right, then why discuss it?

I'm thinking something along the lines of,

"Mr. Berger, you have classified documents in your pants."

"Oh dear! If I'm wearing security briefs under my trousers, then what kind of briefs did I put back into the safe??"

Soundtrack: whah-whah

Laughtrack: Hah hah hah hah!


...or something like that.
 
Virgil said:
Iit seems to me that this potenial crime is serious, however this guy is co opperating with the federal police.

Um. He was caught. After he was caught, he began cooperating. I don't see how this bolsters his credibility.


is the White House cooperating with the investigation about the CIA spy scandal?

(1) It appears so; and
(2) recent news stories appear to confirm that Wilson's version of events regarding the whole "outing" claim have a few holes in it

But then again, that is irrelevant on this topic.


I'm more inclined to belive this guy over the spy leak because he has addmitted to it and is cooperating. whereas the White house has no reason to help out the FBI.

Um. He was caught. A warrant allowed investigators to locate some of the missing documents in his home, after which he admitted having them (no kidding?). How exactly does such "cooperation" help his credibility, in your opinion?
 

Back
Top Bottom