NationStates Jolt Archive

When he was destroying evidence at the National Archives, Sandy Berger evidently didn't get it all... looks like he forgot a State Department cable...

whooops....

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/national/nationalspecial3/09documents.html

WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 - More than three years before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, American diplomats warned Saudi officials that Osama bin Laden might target civilian aircraft, according to a newly declassified State Department cable.

The June 1998 cable reported to Washington that three American officials, the State Department's regional security officer, an economics officer and an aviation specialist had met Saudi officials at King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh to pass along a warning based on an interview Mr. bin Laden, the Saudi-born leader of Al Qaeda, had just given to ABC News.

They said he had threatened in the interview to strike in the next "few weeks" against "military passenger aircraft," mentioning surface-to-air missiles. The cable said there was "no specific information that indicates bin Laden is targeting civilian aircraft," but added, "We could not rule out that a terrorist might take the course of least resistance and turn to a civilian target."

You can only stuff so many pieces of top secret paper into regular dress pants. If only he could have worn these

http://www.whowouldbuythat.com/images/curtain_pants.jpg

You can only stuff so many pieces of top secret paper into regular dress pants. If only he could have worn these

http://www.whowouldbuythat.com/images/curtain_pants.jpg

Tell me that the picture isnt a personal one of yourself. But anyway I agree bigger pants are needed for document stuffing.

If I knew that the only penalty for stealing top secret documents and taking them home and "losing" them was a slap on the wrist, I would have rented a large truck, and brought a forklift to empty the place. Just to make sure that I didn't miss anything, I would take ALL of it out.

I'm surprised he could fit what he did in his pants.

I'm sorry, but the point is what?

I'm sorry, but the point is what?
Bits and pieces of accounts where the previous administration completely missed the warnings on 9-11 keep turning up, despite Sandy Berger's inane attempts to destroy top secret evidence and notes of the same.

Bits and pieces of accounts where the previous administration completely missed the warnings on 9-11 keep turning up, despite Sandy Berger's inane attempts to destroy top secret evidence and notes of the same.
Everyone missed the 9/11 warnings. They have their heads too far up their asses to see anything but the next election, sadly. Both administrations included.

Bits and pieces of accounts where the previous administration completely missed the warnings on 9-11 keep turning up, despite Sandy Berger's inane attempts to destroy top secret evidence and notes of the same.
So then, the current administration should have known there was a terrorist threat? I guess Bush had amnesia the day they were asking questions.

This is really an irrelevant topic to anything. What are you trying to prove that even matters?

So then, the current administration should have known there was a terrorist threat?
Actually, back during the Clinton Administration, they knew, and should have done something about it.

Bits and pieces of accounts where the previous administration completely missed the warnings on 9-11 keep turning up, despite Sandy Berger's inane attempts to destroy top secret evidence and notes of the same.

In other words, a "They Did It First" apology and excuse for Bush missing 9-11 while in the Oval Office- or rather reading "My Pet Goat" to a bunch of schoolkids. And you say you're not a Bushevik, Sierra.

Actually, back during the Clinton Administration, they knew, and should have done something about it.
What do you propose? Overthrow a couple governments in the Middle East on the pretense of terrorist hunting? :rolleyes:

In other words, a "They Did It First" apology and excuse for Bush missing 9-11 while in the Oval Office- or rather reading "My Pet Goat" to a bunch of schoolkids. And you say you're not a Bushevik, Sierra.

Not a "they did it first". It stands to reason that knowing about something years before Bush was in office, they should have done something about it.

And it also stands to reason that they knew they should have done something about it, because they sent Sandy Berger into the top secret archives to destroy any evidence that they knew about it and missed many opportunities to do something.

Dosen't let Bush off the hook, either. But it shows you where the problem began. With Clinton.

Not a "they did it first". It stands to reason that knowing about something years before Bush was in office, they should have done something about it.
So intead of your argument being "they did it first," it is "they didn't do it first?" Tomaeto - tomauto

And it also stands to reason that they knew they should have done something about it, because they sent Sandy Berger into the top secret archives to destroy any evidence that they knew about it and missed many opportunities to do something.
I demand a conspiracy!

With Clinton.
Step out of the time machine Wells.

You're one of the few people on Earth who think that Sandy Berger wasn't in the archives specifically to "lose" White House documents related to 9-11.

You're one of the few people on Earth who think that Sandy Berger wasn't in the archives specifically to "lose" White House documents related to 9-11.
And you are one of the far too many people in the US looking for any reason at all to divert attention away from Bush for his shortcomings and onto the opposition party.

as i remember it they WERE doing something about it.

dont you remember bill clinton visiting the 9/11 site in first few days and saying something stupid like "we tried to get him but we missed?" (no im not gonna look up the actual quote)

dont i recall that clinton actually did shoot a missle at terrorist camps that missed or turned out to be an aspirin factory or something?

dont i recall hearing that bush poo-pooed the whole alqaeda obsession that the previous administration had, dismissing it as their "thing".

dont i recall that the attny general forbade someone from ever mentioning "al quaeda" to him ever again?

9/11 wasnt the first thing alqaeda was involved in, it was just the worst and the first on US soil.

if you look at your quote, youll see that bin laden was making empty threats in '98 about how he was gonna hit military planes in the next couple weeks.

i dont think that happened but the clinton administration took it seriously enough to follow it up. according to your quote



why the fuck do you think they were meeting with saudi officials on the subject of bin laden?

as i remember it they WERE doing something about it.

dont you remember bill clinton visiting the 9/11 site in first few days and saying something stupid like "we tried to get him but we missed?" (no im not gonna look up the actual quote)

dont i recall that clinton actually did shoot a missle at terrorist camps that missed or turned out to be an aspirin factory or something?

dont i recall hearing that bush poo-pooed the whole alqaeda obsession that the previous administration had, dismissing it as their "thing".

dont i recall that the attny general forbade someone from ever mentioning "al quaeda" to him ever again?

9/11 wasnt the first thing alqaeda was involved in, it was just the worst and the first on US soil.

if you look at your quote, youll see that bin laden was making empty threats in '98 about how he was gonna hit military planes in the next couple weeks.

i dont think that happened but the clinton administration took it seriously enough to follow it up. according to your quote



why the fuck do you think they were meeting with saudi officials on the subject of bin laden?


I also recall Madeline Albright telling Bill that assassination of Bin Laden was out of the question - the best they could do was fire missiles at where he used to be.

The pharmaceutical plant in Sudan had no connection to Bin Laden in the mind of the Clinton Adminstration. It's still not clear why they chose to attack it, unless you consider what else was going on at the time.

It was official policy of the Clinton Administration to treat al-Qaeda as a law enforcement problem.

I also recall Madeline Albright telling Bill that assassination of Bin Laden was out of the question - the best they could do was fire missiles at where he used to be.

The pharmaceutical plant in Sudan had no connection to Bin Laden in the mind of the Clinton Adminstration. It's still not clear why they chose to attack it, unless you consider what else was going on at the time.

It was official policy of the Clinton Administration to treat al-Qaeda as a law enforcement problem.
Welcome to ten years ago, population: you.

I have a brilliant idea. Cut out all of the red herring bullshit and see if you can actually defend him without attacking the opposition party. I bet you can't.

Welcome to ten years ago, population: you.

I have a brilliant idea. Cut out all of the red herring bullshit and see if you can actually defend him without attacking the opposition party. I bet you can't.

I guess that's why the press and other investigators continue to dig up evidence that the war on terror was in progress since at least 1993, with the US having no idea it was in a war at all for almost a decade.

I guess that's why the press and other investigators continue to dig up evidence that the war on terror was in progress since at least 1993, with the US having no idea it was in a war at all for almost a decade.
Wow, that ball went straight up and backwards over the ballcage.

Wow, that ball went straight up and backwards over the ballcage.
No, you're not willing to defend Clinton, because you know he was wrong. So you resort to ad hominem. Because you have nothing to defend him with.

I also recall Madeline Albright telling Bill that assassination of Bin Laden was out of the question - the best they could do was fire missiles at where he used to be.

The pharmaceutical plant in Sudan had no connection to Bin Laden in the mind of the Clinton Adminstration. It's still not clear why they chose to attack it, unless you consider what else was going on at the time.

It was official policy of the Clinton Administration to treat al-Qaeda as a law enforcement problem.

you are such a master of hindsight

No, you're not willing to defend Clinton, because you know he was wrong. So you resort to ad hominem. Because you have nothing to defend him with.
I live in the present, you live in the knee-jerk, defend Bush time. It is a magical place, like game time. Bush has been the president for nearly six years. Once Bush entered office, it was his job to take over and defend our nation from terrorists that you report we knew about during the Clinton era. Yet, Bush acted like he knew of no threat, and that is the relevant fact in this thread.

I don't know who sandy burger is, but I bet he tastes awful. With the little bits of grit crunching under your molars every time you chew, yick

Actually, back during the Clinton Administration, they knew, and should have done something about it.
If I recall correctly, there were no hijackings with planes flown into buildings during that administration, and in fact there was a plane bombing plot broken up right around the end of 2000--so I guess they did do something about it.

The real question is--and you haven't answered it yet because you can't do it without making your president look bad--why didn't the Bush administration do anything about it?

It was official policy of the Clinton Administration to treat al-Qaeda as a law enforcement problem.

Firing cruise missiles at another country is law enforcement?

If I recall correctly, there were no hijackings with planes flown into buildings during that administration, and in fact there was a plane bombing plot broken up right around the end of 2000--so I guess they did do something about it.

The real question is--and you haven't answered it yet because you can't do it without making your president look bad--why didn't the Bush administration do anything about it?
Maybe not planes, but 1500 pounds of explosives were detonated in the North tower. The express hope was that it would be destabilized and topple the South tower. This was 1993, when your darling was presiding over the war on terror.

Maybe not planes, but 1500 pounds of explosives were detonated in the North tower. The express hope was that it would be destabilized and topple the South tower. This was 1993, when your darling was presiding over the war on terror.
darling??

who said anything about DARLING?

bill clinton was elected in '92 and inaugurated in '93.

one month later the wtc was bombed.

not exactly a huge amount of time to put any big anti-terrorism campain into effect.

not that bush had much longer. inaugrated in 2001, wtc destroyed 9 months later. but he did try very hard to ignore the threat posed by bin laden and alqaeda.

darling??

who said anything about DARLING?

bill clinton was elected in '92 and inaugurated in '93.

one month later the wtc was bombed.

not exactly a huge amount of time to put any big anti-terrorism campain into effect.

not that bush had much longer. inaugrated in 2001, wtc destroyed 9 months later. but he did try very hard to ignore the threat posed by bin laden and alqaeda.
It's what he did afterwards that was so lacking in commitment.

What do you propose? Overthrow a couple governments in the Middle East on the pretense of terrorist hunting? :rolleyes:

I like you. You're silly. :)

Kimchi - do you work for the White House PR department? You come up with more crap to try to cover the Bush admins ass than anyone else on this board it seems.

It's what he did afterwards that was so lacking in commitment.
another master of hindsight eh?

deep kimchi has shown with his damning memo that clinton wasnt ignoring binladen. we know he took a chance at getting him by hitting an afghan training camp with a bunch of cruise missiles

we know that since 9/11 we have put a whole lot of effort into getting bin laden and that he hasnt been gotten

Kimchi - do you work for the White House PR department? You come up with more crap to try to cover the Bush admins ass than anyone else on this board it seems.
He should be hired for White House PR, the guy they have on it is incompetent.

http://www.slate.com/id/2104138/

Here we go: Second, did this have any impact on the investigation? Did Berger (as at least one Republican charged) block the 9/11 commission from seeing any documents that might have been embarrassing to the Clinton administration? Clearly not. The commission saw everything, including the papers Berger was examining, well before Berger did.

What Berger did was indeed stupid, but it's not like vital information was lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger

Some suggested that Berger's removal of the documents constituted theft and moreover had serious national security implications, while others claimed that the documents were taken, only drafts and all were flattering to Clinton and Berger (relating to the failed 2000 millennium attack plots). Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's public integrity section, asserted that the documents Berger removed were only copies, and government sources have said that no original material was taken.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501130011

UNSUPPORTED CLAIM #1: Berger placed documents "in his pants and his socks"

UNSUPPORTED CLAIM #2: Berger may have accidentally destroyed "documents with handwritten notes that don't appear on other copies"

UNSUPPORTED CLAIM #3: Berger stole the documents in order to cover for the Clinton administration

Now listen carefully. What Berger did was dumb and criminal. No arguments here. But this loony conspiracy stuff is unsupported or in some cases completely contradicted by FACTS.

Kimchi, I know you're a reasonable person. Stop getting your news from WorldNetDaily.

another master of hindsight eh?

deep kimchi has shown with his damning memo that clinton wasnt ignoring binladen. we know he took a chance at getting him by hitting an afghan training camp with a bunch of cruise missiles

we know that since 9/11 we have put a whole lot of effort into getting bin laden and that he hasnt been gotten
Not acting to prevent the bombings on 9/11/01 can be pawned off onto hindsight, but that's not what I'm getting at.

The WTC was bombed. Islamist terrorists were the perpetrators. Failure to aggressively pursue these terrorists was Clinton's failure. Lobbing a couple cruise missiles at some dormant camps in Ashcanistan isn't aggressive pursuit. It's the action of a moral coward who can only respond to public opinion polls.

It's the action of a moral coward who can only respond to public opinion polls.
Hey, look over there! No, over there! Haha, got'cha.

That part of your post is almost as pointless as that. I give you the same challenge I gave Kimchi. Defend Bush without attacking anny opposing party.

Not acting to prevent the bombings on 9/11/01 can be pawned off onto hindsight, but that's not what I'm getting at.

The WTC was bombed. Islamist terrorists were the perpetrators. Failure to aggressively pursue these terrorists was Clinton's failure. Lobbing a couple cruise missiles at some dormant camps in Ashcanistan isn't aggressive pursuit. It's the action of a moral coward who can only respond to public opinion polls.

Whereas the actions of G W have been the actions of an immoral coward who can only respond to Republican talking points...

And since one of those talking points seems to be the uselessness of finger pointing after the fact, I say we address the current problem, I.E. the jackass currently in power.

Not acting to prevent the bombings on 9/11/01 can be pawned off onto hindsight, but that's not what I'm getting at.

The WTC was bombed. Islamist terrorists were the perpetrators. Failure to aggressively pursue these terrorists was Clinton's failure. Lobbing a couple cruise missiles at some dormant camps in Ashcanistan isn't aggressive pursuit. It's the action of a moral coward who can only respond to public opinion polls.
because he should have...... gone to afghanistan and challenged bin laden to a duel?

what should he have done that doesnt have the benefit of hindsight to get the right answer?

It's not my attempt to defend Bush, except to point out that he has acted where others have failed to do so.

because he should have...... gone to afghanistan and challenged bin laden to a duel?

what should he have done that doesnt have the benefit of hindsight to get the right answer?
Because the action he took in this and many other cases was to do something that looked good on the news, then move on to other things that would earn him higher numbers in public opinion polls. He had the same opportunity to mass ground forces and attack the Taliban and disrupt the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. He just lacked the will to do so.

It's not my attempt to defend Bush, except to point out that he has acted where others have failed to do so.

Which would be fine if he had acted correctly.

It's not my attempt to defend Bush, except to point out that he has acted where others have failed to do so.
since ANYONE who was president on 9/11 would have acted, i would have preferred someone who did the right thing.

Because the action he took in this and many other cases was to do something that looked good on the news, then move on to other things that would earn him higher numbers in public opinion polls. He had the same opportunity to mass ground forces and attack the Taliban and disrupt the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. He just lacked the will to do so.

You can't just wage a ground war because you want to. Imagine the world opinion against the US if there had been no 9/11. Hell, even with a Republican Congress, Bush (or Clinton) would never have gotten Congressional authority to commit ground troops. Look how much the Republicans bitched and bitched about Kosovo.

Without 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq would not have happened. Period.

Because the action he took in this and many other cases was to do something that looked good on the news, then move on to other things that would earn him higher numbers in public opinion polls. He had the same opportunity to mass ground forces and attack the Taliban and disrupt the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. He just lacked the will to do so.
he caught a ration of shit for the little he did do. there was no public will to invade afghanistan.

You can't just wage a ground war because you want to. Imagine thw world opinion against the US if there had been no 9/11. Hell, even with a Republican Congress, Bush (or Clinton) would never have gotten Congressional authority to commit ground troops. Look how much the Republicans bitched and bitched about Kosovo.
So what's the fundamental difference between violating sovereign territory by bombing it and violating sovereign territory by invading it? Maybe the length of time you're there? Maybe the commitment that you have to accomplishing a given task?

he caught a ration of shit for the little he did do. there was no public will to invade afghanistan.
And that was Clinton's basic problem, time and time again. He was elected to lead a nation, not bow to public opinion.

And that was Clinton's basic problem, time and time again. He was elected to lead a nation, not bow to public opinion.
I think you are replacing reality with bias again.

I think you are replacing reality with bias again.
Maybe a little, but not entirely. Clinton was without backbone. Remember how he was on the verge of turning the troops around in Haiti until Carter managed to broker a deal that would keep them from being opposed?
Then there's his withdrawal from Somalia after things quit looking good on the evening news.

I actually did vote for the man in 1992. He promised the "most ethical administration" in the history of the world. That was before I discovered the Libertarian party and while I voted in Florida. So my vote didn't really make much difference, since Florida went to Dole.

So what's the fundamental difference between violating sovereign territory by bombing it and violating sovereign territory by invading it? Maybe the length of time you're there? Maybe the commitment that you have to accomplishing a given task?

The difference is that one doesn't require the approval of a hostile Congress.

Not acting to prevent the bombings on 9/11/01 can be pawned off onto hindsight, but that's not what I'm getting at.

The WTC was bombed. Islamist terrorists were the perpetrators. Failure to aggressively pursue these terrorists was Clinton's failure. Lobbing a couple cruise missiles at some dormant camps in Ashcanistan isn't aggressive pursuit. It's the action of a moral coward who can only respond to public opinion polls.

Trillions of dollars Later, Bush has gotten no further by "aggressively persuing these terrorists"....

Trillions of dollars Later, Bush has gotten no further by "aggressively persuing these terrorists"....
Depends on how you measure success, I guess. It looks like the Islamists have no refuge in Afghanistan, anymore. We've only lost a couple thousand lives after three years of fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. We haven't had a subway, airplane, federal building, or pizza parlor bombed in the United States. Many of the ring-leaders of Islamist groups are dead or in captivity.

Have we captured or killed bin Laden? Probably not, but he's undoubtedly having a hard time of it right now.

I have to rake leaves, so you get the last word.

Depends on how you measure success, I guess. It looks like the Islamists have no refuge in Afghanistan, anymore. We've only lost a couple thousand lives after three years of fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. We haven't had a subway, airplane, federal building, or pizza parlor bombed in the United States. Many of the ring-leaders of Islamist groups are dead or in captivity.

Have we captured or killed bin Laden? Probably not, but he's undoubtedly having a hard time of it right now.

I have to rake leaves, so you get the last word.

The Islamists have no refuge in Kabul. Outside the limited scope of the central government's power out in the countryside, Warlords all but hold sway, and they have their own alliances.

Without this telegram, no one in the united states could have possibly forseen a plane being hijacked by terrorists.

we'll wait for ya, myr

Without this telegram, no one in the united states could have possibly forseen a plane being hijacked by terrorists.
you forgot your /sarcasm tag.

unless you were serious in which case i respond...

not even an fbi agent who got a report that there were saudi flight students who weren't interested in learning how to take off and land a plane??

you forgot your /sarcasm tag.

unless you were serious in which case i respond...

not even an fbi agent who got a report that there were saudi flight students who weren't interested in learning how to take off and land a plane??


My sarcasm never needs a tag.

Depends on how you measure success, I guess. It looks like the Islamists have no refuge in Afghanistan, anymore. We've only lost a couple thousand lives after three years of fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. We haven't had a subway, airplane, federal building, or pizza parlor bombed in the United States.
And when was the first Islamic terrorist attack inside the United States that occurred after the World Trade Center Bombing in the '90s?

Because the action he took in this and many other cases was to do something that looked good on the news, then move on to other things that would earn him higher numbers in public opinion polls. He had the same opportunity to mass ground forces and attack the Taliban and disrupt the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. He just lacked the will to do so.
Clinton lacked the will? So I guess the WhitewaterPaulaJonesTravelgateMonica witchhunt had nothing to do with the fact that whenever Clinton tried to do anything in that part of the world, the Republican leadership in both houses of Congress accused him of everything short of treason, huh? Of using the military to draw attention away from his "crimes?" Fuck your selective memory, Myrmidonisia. That Clinton managed to get anything done in that sphere--and he got plenty done, despite what you imply--is a testament to the amount of will he had to get something done over there, because he was doing it in the face of intense opposition from the Republican leadership.

Here's what I remember about Clinton's claimed achievements.
--Achieved victory and ended ethnic cleansing in Kosovo
--Building a self-sustaining peace in Bosnia
--Pressing for human rights, core labor standards, religious freedom, and the elimination of child labor worldwide

UN peacekeepers are still having to justify their inability to control ethnic cleansing in Serbia/Croatia/Bosnia. There is no 'self-sustained' peace, despite the acts and claims of Holbrook. Somalia is just as much a mess as the day Clinton pulled out. Conditions in Haiti are not much better than they were when Carter paved the way for an unopposed landing.

What was the 'plenty done' that you are referring to, with such great dependance on profanity?

Clinton lacked the will? So I guess the WhitewaterPaulaJonesTravelgateMonica witchhunt had nothing to do with the fact that whenever Clinton tried to do anything in that part of the world, the Republican leadership in both houses of Congress accused him of everything short of treason, huh? Of using the military to draw attention away from his "crimes?" Fuck your selective memory, Myrmidonisia. That Clinton managed to get anything done in that sphere--and he got plenty done, despite what you imply--is a testament to the amount of will he had to get something done over there, because he was doing it in the face of intense opposition from the Republican leadership.
Wasn't he accused of treason to?

Wasn't he accused of treason to?
I'm trying to keep the likes of Ann Coulter out of this discussion--she's got a thread of her own.

A question for Myrm:

How much do you think George W. would be able to get done if the Democrats controlled Congress?

Especially considering George W. hasn't been able to do a thing since Iraq

No Soc Sec reform...

Having his own party kill a Supreme Court nomination...

A divide in his own party on torture...

What was the 'plenty done' that you are referring to, with such great dependance on profanity?
His Justice department convicted and imprisoned Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and nine others responsible for planning the 1993 WTC bombing.

His administration first recognized the threat of global terrorism and set up the worldwide infrastructure that was being used to combat al Qaeda as well as other terror groups.

They foiled the Millenium Plot because they scrambled all available resources--part of the reason they were able to do this was because the person in charge of counterterrorism was 1) a cabinet member with access to the President and 2) the President knew it was a real problem, and not just a state-level problem.

Despite Congressional opposition, he struck at terrorist camps in Afghanistan with cruise missiles. Only intense Congressional opposition limited his actions, as members of his Cabinet have said repeatedly.

And that's what I can remember off the top of my head.

His Justice department convicted and imprisoned Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and nine others responsible for planning the 1993 WTC bombing.

His administration first recognized the threat of global terrorism and set up the worldwide infrastructure that was being used to combat al Qaeda as well as other terror groups.

They foiled the Millenium Plot because they scrambled all available resources--part of the reason they were able to do this was because the person in charge of counterterrorism was 1) a cabinet member with access to the President and 2) the President knew it was a real problem, and not just a state-level problem.

Despite Congressional opposition, he struck at terrorist camps in Afghanistan with cruise missiles. Only intense Congressional opposition limited his actions, as members of his Cabinet have said repeatedly.

And that's what I can remember off the top of my head.


Yeah but did he start a war? No! So therefore he did nothing. NOTHING!

When he was destroying evidence at the National Archives, Sandy Berger evidently didn't get it all... looks like he forgot a State Department cable...

whooops....

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/national/nationalspecial3/09documents.html

Other than gratuitously smearing Mr. Berger, do you have a point to this?

If it is that Clinton administration should have been alerted to the threat by this one cable, then why wasn't Bush alerted by the national security reports that were even more blatant?

(BTW, Berger was never charged with removing origincal documents, only copies. The archives still had a copy of everything Berger removed.)

Not a "they did it first". It stands to reason that knowing about something years before Bush was in office, they should have done something about it.

And it also stands to reason that they knew they should have done something about it, because they sent Sandy Berger into the top secret archives to destroy any evidence that they knew about it and missed many opportunities to do something.

Dosen't let Bush off the hook, either. But it shows you where the problem began. With Clinton.


Is your tinfoil hat too tight?

You don't have the facts regarding Berger even remotely correct. And there was never any evidence of some conspiracy by Berger with anyone else.

You are just making shit up to try to make Clinton look bad and Bush look better.

Everyone missed the 9/11 warnings. They have their heads too far up their asses to see anything but the next election, sadly. Both administrations included.

Exactly. Bravo. Well said.

You're one of the few people on Earth who think that Sandy Berger wasn't in the archives specifically to "lose" White House documents related to 9-11.

ROTFLASTC

Curious then that Berger didn't destroy or remove anything but copies and left originals.

I also recall Madeline Albright telling Bill that assassination of Bin Laden was out of the question - the best they could do was fire missiles at where he used to be.

The pharmaceutical plant in Sudan had no connection to Bin Laden in the mind of the Clinton Adminstration. It's still not clear why they chose to attack it, unless you consider what else was going on at the time.

It was official policy of the Clinton Administration to treat al-Qaeda as a law enforcement problem.

Not acting to prevent the bombings on 9/11/01 can be pawned off onto hindsight, but that's not what I'm getting at.

The WTC was bombed. Islamist terrorists were the perpetrators. Failure to aggressively pursue these terrorists was Clinton's failure. Lobbing a couple cruise missiles at some dormant camps in Ashcanistan isn't aggressive pursuit. It's the action of a moral coward who can only respond to public opinion polls.


You are full of shit. The Clinton Administration actively fought the war on terror. Here are just a few links:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1558918.stm
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/7/30/154040/162
President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws (http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/)(1996)

I won't bother with more proof because facts roll off you like water off a duck.

And when was the first Islamic terrorist attack inside the United States that occurred after the World Trade Center Bombing in the '90s?
When the drought broke, it was a dam-buster. If more than just a simple arrest and conviction of the perpetrators had been undertaken, maybe Atta and the boys wouldn't have been so comfortable with their flight training. Maybe if Gorelick(?) hadn't given the opinion that the FBI and CIA couldn't share information on domestic terror suspects, there would have been some more clues put together?

Lot's of maybes, none of them happened because it wouldn't have been popular.

His Justice department convicted and imprisoned Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and nine others responsible for planning the 1993 WTC bombing.

His administration first recognized the threat of global terrorism and set up the worldwide infrastructure that was being used to combat al Qaeda as well as other terror groups.

They foiled the Millenium Plot because they scrambled all available resources--part of the reason they were able to do this was because the person in charge of counterterrorism was 1) a cabinet member with access to the President and 2) the President knew it was a real problem, and not just a state-level problem.

Despite Congressional opposition, he struck at terrorist camps in Afghanistan with cruise missiles. Only intense Congressional opposition limited his actions, as members of his Cabinet have said repeatedly.

And that's what I can remember off the top of my head.
A little prosecution and some administrative manipulation. Okay, maybe it helped, maybe it was eyewash. Gorelick's Wall certainly didn't make anything easier on the domestic side, did it? And then there was the big Iraq Liberation Act? Wasn't that the regime change policy that he advocated? That did require the support of a very hostile Congress, by that time in his efforts to obstruct justice and commit perjury over other matters.

No, he looks worse than ineffective, now that I remember the Gorelick scandal at the DoJ.

You are full of shit. The Clinton Administration actively fought the war on terror. Here are just a few links:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1558918.stm
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/7/30/154040/162
President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws (http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/)(1996)

I won't bother with more proof because facts roll off you like water off a duck.
This stuff is so funny and irrelevant I can't believe you're sober.
First, the snopes stuff only represents some efforts to handle the problem at the edges. Questioning the Saudi bombing suspects were hampered by authorities. You don't get suspects when you have suicidal bombers, either, but the Bush administration managed to figure out who their pals were and go after them. Clinton's must have just sat there wringing their hands and complaining about how close they got. Most everything else in that link seems that the best that was hoped for was to try and convict the bombers.

Then there's the bin Laden 'killing' that he ordered in 1998. It's not clear whether that was before or after the Taliban offered (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/19/taliban.documents/) to turn over bin Laden to the U.S.

The newly declassified documents, posted Thursday on the National Archives Web site, provide a fascinating glimpse into U.S. diplomacy exerted on Afghanistan's ruling Taliban -- a regime officially unrecognized by Washington -- nearly three years before the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks on the United States.

According to the documents, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan, Alan Eastham Jr., met with Wakil Ahmed, a close aide to Taliban leader Mullah Omar, in November and December 1998. That was just months after the August al Qaeda attacks that killed more than 200 people at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

But wait, you cited his actions after the embassy attacks as creditable.


Still, Clinton went out of his way to make things difficult in the US. The Gorelick wall probably did more to allow 9/11 to happen than any other single lack of purpose in his 'fight' against Islamists

Let's see: the Gorelick wall, and the supposed offer of Bin Laden--any other Newsmax/World Net Daily talking points you want to toss at us while not answering any of the substance of the discussion?

Let's see: the Gorelick wall, and the supposed offer of Bin Laden--any other Newsmax/World Net Daily talking points you want to toss at us while not answering any of the substance of the discussion?

If you want to get right to the subject - digging for information on what we could have done to prevent 9-11 - let's have The Nazz explain what Sandy Berger was doing stuffing top secret memos directly related to Clinton Administration meetings on Bin Laden and al-Qaeda into his pants, taking them home, and "losing" them. A feat which he was convicted for - so you can't proclaim it was an innocent act.

If you want to get right to the subject - digging for information on what we could have done to prevent 9-11 - let's have The Nazz explain what Sandy Berger was doing stuffing top secret memos directly related to Clinton Administration meetings on Bin Laden and al-Qaeda into his pants, taking them home, and "losing" them. A feat which he was convicted for - so you can't proclaim it was an innocent act.

Yes, he was convicted for removing copies of documents that still exist to this day and had already been seen and reviewed before Berger ever touched them. So...how is that trying to cover something up again?

When the drought broke, it was a dam-buster. If more than just a simple arrest and conviction of the perpetrators had been undertaken, maybe Atta and the boys wouldn't have been so comfortable with their flight training. Maybe if Gorelick(?) hadn't given the opinion that the FBI and CIA couldn't share information on domestic terror suspects, there would have been some more clues put together?

Lot's of maybes, none of them happened because it wouldn't have been popular.
Good job entirely avoiding the question while delivering a line of bullshit in the guise of an answer.

Yes, he was convicted for removing copies of documents that still exist to this day and had already been seen and reviewed before Berger ever touched them. So...how is that trying to cover something up again?
Because 1/3 of the documents he took have never been found or reviewed.

Because 1/3 of the documents he took have never been found or reviewed.
how do they know how many he took if they were never found?

how do they know how many he took if they were never found?
Audit.

Because 1/3 of the documents he took have never been found or reviewed.

That's a lie, pure and simple.

I guess I have to post this again

http://www.slate.com/id/2104138/


Second, did this have any impact on the investigation? Did Berger (as at least one Republican charged) block the 9/11 commission from seeing any documents that might have been embarrassing to the Clinton administration? Clearly not. The commission saw everything, including the papers Berger was examining, well before Berger did.

Stop it Kimchi, just stop it. YOU CANNOT make a point by just making shit up.

how do they know how many he took if they were never found?
Magic. Duh.

That's a lie, pure and simple.

I guess I have to post this again

http://www.slate.com/id/2104138/

Stop it Kimchi, just stop it. YOU CANNOT make a point by just making shit up.

Not a lie. I've been down to the National Archives to talk to the folks down there.

Sandy has protection from up on high. Someone besides the previous administration (maybe the current one as well) wanted Sandy to go in there and get rid of things.

From the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10451-2004Jul23.html

Given that Berger walked out of the National Archives with classified material and 40 to 50 pages of notes he had taken, and that he failed to show these papers to archives officials for review before leaving, as he should have, can he be still trusted with classified material?

Archives officials say that Berger turned over the notes when contacted by archives workers about missing files, but other documents are still missing. A search of his home and office failed to locate the missing documents. Does this raise a question regarding Berger's willingness and ability to safeguard classified information in his possession?

Looks like you're wrong - the documents are, and continue to be, missing.

From the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10451-2004Jul23.html



Looks like you're wrong - the documents are, and continue to be, missing.
and the proof that he took these missing documents and the proof of how many there were?

From the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10451-2004Jul23.html



Looks like you're wrong - the documents are, and continue to be, missing.

I'll see your Washington Post article and see raise you another:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html

amuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism.

The deal's terms make clear that Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them.

The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an "after-action review" prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil.

Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost.

They knew what he took, and they were only copies. Deal with it.

and the proof that he took these missing documents and the proof of how many there were?
not that i give a damn about berger one way or the other. he was convicted of taking documents wasnt he?

its interesting how you have latched onto this issue as a way to have you be "right" when you were so clearly wrong in this whole thread.

not that i give a damn about berger one way or the other. he was convicted of taking documents wasnt he?

its interesting how you have latched onto this issue as a way to have you be "right" when you were so clearly wrong in this whole thread.

Yes, Berger took copies of already known and reviewed documents and that is a crime. End of story.

If I had a Sandy Berger I would so get my money back.