37 Comments

• 1. Some Assembly Required  |  May 5th, 2008 at 6:46 pm

  Nice, when all else fails lets blame 9/11 on Clinton. I thought you guys were against those 9/11 ‘truthers’ who think it was an ‘inside job’. Those conspiracy theorists with BDS… Those people who questioned why Bush sat on his a$$ for 10 or 12 minutes (whatever it was) while the nation was under attack. If McCain takes office and you realize the damage cannot be repaired by tax cuts and staying in Iraq, I honestly think you’ll still blame Clinton. This has to be a new low even for this blog.

• 2. Hillary Clinton Updates &&hellip  |  May 5th, 2008 at 6:48 pm

  [...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]

• 3. William Teach  |  May 5th, 2008 at 6:57 pm

  I missed the part where Matt blamed Clinton. Could you point that out, SAR?

  I blame Clinton for not getting Osama the 3 times he was offered on a silver platter. That said, I do not think that would have stopped Al Qaeda, especially not with Zawahiri as part of the crew. Osama is the leader, the figure head, but, it is Zawahiri who made things happen.

  Nice deflection from the point of the post, though, SAR. Wouldn’t you like to know what is in those papers? Are libs always calling for Conservatives to release everything, to hide nothing, and for transparent government? Or, are you just a typical hypocritical liberal?

• 4. Matt Margolis  |  May 5th, 2008 at 6:58 pm

  This is not about blaming 9/11 on Clinton. This is about what actions by the Clinton administration were being covered up by Berger’s theft.

  Cut the crap Some Assembly Required, you’ve given us the cliche “new low” line before. So really, find another talking point.

• 5. Some Assembly Required  |  May 5th, 2008 at 7:25 pm

  Sorry Matt, let me clarify. You did not ‘blame’ Clinton. You have just raised questions implying that Berger (Someone working at the behest of Clinton) stole papers which could possibly show that Clinton let Bin Laden go. Which is to say if he had not let Bin Laden go, 9/11 would not have happened. All this without actually knowing what is in those papers. Or am I reading to much into it?!?!?!

  Matt, I’ll make you a deal, I’ll drop the ‘new low’ talking point if you drop the ‘20 year pastor one’.

  If it turns out Clinton was doing something Illegal (aside from lying about adultery) by all means string him up. To answer your question Will, yes I would like to know what was in those papers. I do believe there is something incriminating but I will not may any presumptions until they have been unveiled. I would also like to know what was in those missing white house e-mails and why Karl Rove will not testify, but thats a different topic all together.

• 6. Matt Margolis  |  May 5th, 2008 at 7:27 pm

  lying under oath isn’t illegal?

  was Wright not Obama’s pastor for 20 years?

• 7. Some Assembly Required  |  May 5th, 2008 at 7:46 pm

  In case you missed my point Matt my friend, it was not about whether Wright was Obama’s pastor for 20 years. It was about how absurd the Talking point is especially considering the state of America right now, not to mention McCain seeking out Rev. Hagee’s endorsement. Similarly me saying your blog has reached a ‘new low’ really holds no merit, just something to throw out there and hope it catches on. I thought you’d be familiar with that though…

  As for Clinton, the man was Impeached for it, what more do you want? Should he be imprisoned because he wanted to save the sanctity his marriage?

• 8. SEW  |  May 5th, 2008 at 8:33 pm

  Clinton “wanted to save the sanctity his marriage”

  Who needs Leno?

• 9. Carl Gordon  |  May 5th, 2008 at 8:35 pm

  In regards to what this “writer” is spouting off about, I think the gist of his argument is incorrect: instead of focusing on what Clinton or Berger said/didn’t say, he should focus on his own obvious condition, something akin to Asperger’s Syndrome.

  With this site’s well documented quandary with truth and reality, over time, the obvious disgust towards existence (check the site layout!) forces him/her into near-insanity and self-hatred. It embodies Sartre’s theories of existential angst, and the “writer” searches anxiously for significance in all the things that had filled and fulfilled his sorry life up to that point, excluding his convalescence and subsequent medication “therapy”. But finally he comes to a revelation into the temperament of his being - the troublesomely provisional and limited nature of existence itself, and on top of that his notorious attention deficit.

  In his solemn oath to kiss the ass of Boosh and any of his criminally morality-deficient lackeys, he accepts, yea revels, in the indifference of the physical world to man’s aspirations. He is barely able to see that realization not only as a regret but also as an opportunity, just like Boosh and pin-dick Cheney. People are free to make their own meaning: a freedom that is also a responsibility, because without that commitment there will be no meaning, not that that ever bothered anybody in the current admin in the least.

  This “writer” is just one of many examples of people whose behavior shows bad faith, who are inauthentic: members of the bourgeoisie who believe their social standing or social skills give them a “right” to exist, or others who embrace the banality of life and attempt to flee from freedom by repeating empty gestures, others who live by perpetuating past versions of themselves as they were or who live for the expectations of others, or those who claim to have found meaning in politics, morality, or ideology.

• 10. Library » Blog Arch&hellip  |  May 5th, 2008 at 8:56 pm

  [...] ©@®L05â��s blog - Vox wrote an interesting post today on Clinton Library Keeps Berger Stolen Docs Under Lock, Key and ZipperHere’s a quick excerptWell, if the Clinton Library apparently has copies of the documents, but has refused a FOIA request to release them. [...]

• 11. SEW  |  May 5th, 2008 at 11:08 pm

  Carl, What a load of horse manure.

• 12. Chuck  |  May 5th, 2008 at 11:42 pm

  Wow Carl, you tried your best to appear to be an intellectual.

  It didn’t work. Sorry.

• 13. Insideout  |  May 6th, 2008 at 4:58 am

  It would be nice if the Democrats and Republicans could meet on the Washington Mall. Republicans could turn over Cheney’s meetings with the oil executives along with Karl Rove’s and Gonzo’s notes on the firing of the U.S attorneys. Democrats could hand over everything about Lewinski since the Repugs are obsessed with her.

  9. Carl Gordon | May 5th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
  he should focus on his own obvious condition, something akin to Asperger’s Syndrome.

  Carl, that was uncalled for! Don’t lower yourself to the level of the Hannities and Limbaughs. We will win this debate in November with our principals in tact.

• 14. Lord Just Mandier  |  May 6th, 2008 at 6:45 am

  Here is how partisan arguments soil the fabric of honest debate. CNS News made a FOIA request for classified documents that by law cannot be viewed prusuant to a FOIA request. The proper course of action was to submit a Mandatory Declassification Review as specified under Executive Order 12958. The very premise of the first paragraph of the CNS piece is dishonest because it would be a crime for the National Archives to allow classified material to be presented for public viewing without an MDR declaring the material declassified.

  This was done solely to bring up Sandy Berger’s theft which has been dealt with by the appropriate authority and punishment carried out to that end.

• 15. js  |  May 6th, 2008 at 7:00 am

  isnt it a crime to steal….and then…..for the clintons to aid and abet in that theft…..also a crime of conspiracy….to commit the theft….just the fact that the clinton library has the stolen documents is enough to charge burger…and probably billy boy…..for a national security crime….if, as they say, such information is classified…that was stolen from the national archives…..so since berger was tried for misdemeanor crimes, and convicted….why did they let clinton off scott free without the conspiriacy charge…or for helping (before or after the fact)….certainly he can not feasibly claim he didnt know….they are in his library….and the library is knowingly in possession of stolen goods….

• 16. steveGA  |  May 6th, 2008 at 8:24 am

  As the article points out, Berger took COPIES of papers, which means the originals are still in the archives. Given that, its pretty hard to claim that Berger was trying to cover something up, don’t you think?

  By the way, whatever happened to those millions of emails the White House ‘lost’? Are you outraged about those, or just 5 copies of sheets of paper?

• 17. InDaVa  |  May 6th, 2008 at 9:15 am

  js, give it a rest. You should show the same spirit about the White House emails but you won’t. We all know that.

  True, the original docs are still in the library. I would love to know what was in the docs that Berger took. As well as the White House emails….
  We’ll probably won’t know for a long time.

  As for Osama Bin Laden, Clinton had his shot and didn’t get him. 3 times on a silver platter is not true. Bush had him on a gold platter and decided to play golf.

• 18. Danish Artist  |  May 6th, 2008 at 9:28 am

  If the copies are still at the National Archives, then why do they need access to the ones at the Clinton library?

  Fools, the ones at the National Archives were copies! The only ones there. They were taken and destroyed. In April 2005, Berger pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives in Washington. You cannot easily copy classified material. Berger stated that he originally removed handwritten notes that were not cleared by NA staff.

  NA staff told Berger that documents were still missing after Berger stated that he returned everything. The so-called “copies” may have been returned but, NA still maintains that unknown originals were taken.

  Liberals, still trying to revise history and change the argument to Clinton’s infidelity.

• 19. Lord Just Mandier  |  May 6th, 2008 at 9:31 am

  15. js | May 6th, 2008 at 7:00 am

  Yes it is a crime to steal and Sandy Berger has been tried and convicted to what he did. Berger did not steal original documents but copies of the originals which were still being held by the Clinton Library. Your need to make this a partisan issue rather than a protection of classified materials issue is most ill informed in nature and paints you as a person with a limited regard for the security of your own nation.

• 20. Lord Just Mandier  |  May 6th, 2008 at 9:43 am

  Well then Danish Artist, since you are privy to exchanges between the national Archives and the Bush White House explain to us why the Department of Justice made this statement in regard to the removal of copies by Berger from the National Archives,

  “Berger took the documents to his office in the District of Columbia, where he destroyed three of the copies. Soon after the October visit, the Archives discovered that documents were missing and, two days later, contacted Berger. Initially, Berger did not tell the Archives staff that he had taken the documents but later that night told Archives staff that he had “accidentally misfiled” two of them. The next day, he returned to Archives staff the two remaining copies of the five documents he had taken during the September and October visits. Each of the five copies of the document was produced to the 9-11 Commission in due course.

  In his plea, Berger also admitted that he concealed and removed his handwritten notes from the Archives prior to a classification review, in violation of Archives rules and procedures. Those notes have been returned to the government. “

• 21. js  |  May 6th, 2008 at 10:30 am

  Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost. It remains unclear whether Berger knew that, or why he destroyed three versions of a document but left two other versions intact. Officials have said the five versions were largely similar, but contained slight variations as the after-action report moved around different agencies of the executive branch.

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

  its an ongoing criminal act…when burger lied that these copies were destroyed…and they are in the clinton library…so both burds are guilty of criminal behavior….burgers lies to the court…and clinton/libraries possession of the stolen papers….

  that is far from partisan…..but then again….liberals with make all the noise they can to hide the truth….

• 22. Lord Just Mandier  |  May 6th, 2008 at 10:45 am

  21. js | May 6th, 2008 at 10:30 am

  I cannot make it any clearer that the entire original the Millennium Alert After Action Review (MAAR) is in the Clinton Library where it belongs as a part of the classified records of the two term William Jefferson Clinton presidency. There is no theft from the archives because the papers in their original form are in the Clinton Library and never were in the National Archives which is why Berger only had acces to copies.

  I would suggest that in the future you stop getting your information from right wing Israeli blogs, AIPAC, the Free Republic, WorldNet Daily and EWTN in such matters and just go to the source, in this case the Bush Justice department for resolution.

• 23. Danish Artist  |  May 6th, 2008 at 12:10 pm

  LJM,

  It cannot be any clearer that Sandy Bergler stole and destroyed copies from the National Archives. The only copies that are available to those in Washington.

  It cannot be any clearer that the only surviving ORIGINALS are in the Clinton Library.

  WHO HAS CONTROL OF THE CLINTON LIBRARY?
  WHO ARE THE ONES WHO CAN RELEASE THEM?

  Your name should be Lord Just Asdense.

• 24. Gabrielle Deroscheres  |  May 6th, 2008 at 1:33 pm

  23. Danish Artist | May 6th, 2008 at 12:10 pm

  First off we can have an adult discussion without acting like juveniles. Next, the originals are in the Clinton Library because they are classified materials generated during that presidency. The same applies to classified papers in the reagan Library about Iran Contra or papers from the Carter Begin Sadat Peace Talks et cetera.

  The public has no right to see those documents because they are classified just as if you requested the viewing of a FISA warrant from the Bush Library under FOIA in 2009 the courteous response will be “no.”

  Do you understand now or are you so blinded by the need to support your meaningless political party’s doctrines that you cannot grasp the proper dispensation of Executive Office Classified Materials?

• 25. Gabrielle Deroscheres  |  May 6th, 2008 at 1:34 pm

  Jeez I know this and I don’t even habdle classified materials!

• 26. Danish Artist  |  May 6th, 2008 at 1:46 pm

  That’s what happens when I deal with juveniles.

  Case in point, your post.

  Executive Office Classified Materials?

  Funny, your ilk does not believe Bush’s classified materials should be treated as such. We have heard the endless whinning from you libs about the dismissal of federal judges and how the White House should release memos, emails and such - with the lame “the public has a right to know”.

  “..if you requested the viewing of a FISA warrant from the Bush Library under FOIA in 2009 the courteous response will be “no.” ”

  Are you a soothsayer? First point, you obviously do not understand FISA, which allows for warrantless wire taps. Secondly, your “what-ifs” are just mindlessly stupid and irrelevant to the topic.

  Clinton has always promised documents, but the Clinton library either never delivers or there is a huge document dump of mostly irrelevant materials. it’s great when you control the information - as in this topic. Bergler destroyed the only documents not under Clinton control. How convenient!

  Now, juvenile Gabby, go back to your useless website and post there. Your garbage will then blend in with the rest.

• 27. Kahn  |  May 6th, 2008 at 5:52 pm

  SAR, so… just what were the Papers Burger stole and the library won’t release? Really - WHAT ARE THEY?????

  Just WHY DID he steal and destroy them? WHY won’t the library release them. Freedom of Information Act. It’s there to shed light.

  Since Burger and Clinton and now you offer no reasonable explanation, we’ll surmise our own. Prove us wrong.

  Clinton was offered Bin-Laden and refused multiple times. Democrats are/were squeemish about actually killing one of our deadly enemies. Democrats are/were unfit to defend the country.

  You’;re so smart? PROVE me wrong by quoting the secret papers. Or, just shut up.

• 28. Some Assembly Required  |  May 6th, 2008 at 7:20 pm

  “Since Burger and Clinton and now you offer no reasonable explanation, we’ll surmise our own. Prove us wrong.”

  Kahn, this is exactly what I’m talking about. Jumping the gun without the information handy. (It’s Clinton/bergers fault until proven otherwise.) As people have already noted what was destroyed are copies of the documents. The files are still intact in the library. They will eventually be released to the public in due time. When they are I will further debate it with you. Everything until then about the content of said documents is just speculation and opinion.

  I can only hope that you hold Mr Rove and the loss of the white house e-mails to the same scrutiny. I know I do.

  Rove maybe many things, but he is innocent until he testifies before congress or conclusive evidence comes forward PROVING his Guilt. Let me repeat that, he is INNOCENT until he testifies before congress or conclusive evidence comes forward PROVING his GUILT.

  Same goes for the white house e-mails. Though I will admit they do raise more questions, considering it involves the current administration occupying the white house. As in these people are currently running the country and not that there republicans.

• 29. Danish Artist  |  May 6th, 2008 at 9:39 pm

  “this is exactly what I’m talking about. Jumping the gun without the information handy”

  OH, you mean like the dismissal of a handful of federal judges. You libs jumped all over that one.

  OR, the so called “outing” of a CIA agent….

  SAR, spare the rhetoric when it’s your guys under the microscope.

  Talk about a party hack!

• 30. Gabrielle Deroscheres  |  May 6th, 2008 at 10:07 pm

  27. Kahn | May 6th, 2008 at 5:52 pm

  How is it possible to quote text from papers classified as Secret by Executive Order 13292?

  America has an excellent legal tradition Kahn if you think Clinton committed a crime find a lawyer and sue him in civil court for jeopardizing the security of the United States and let’s see how far you get with your Freeper talking points. I doubt if even one of the Right Wing law firms that work “pro life” cases pro bono would even go near that nonsense. There were people just like you who thought Nixon was a good guy too. I could care less if Bin Laden is ever captured by the way because the global economy will go on with or without your little war on terror fear fest. To me it’s all about money. I don’t care if Clinton decided to take three hours and go jogging for Whoppers or even if he necked with Monica while Bin laden got away because you know what I made money when Bill Clinton was in office, I made money on 9/11 and I made money the day after. And so did all of you.
  And besides it’s done what are you gonna do now whine about “revenge USA #!!!!!1111″ or are you gonna make money?

  29. Danish Artist | May 6th, 2008 at 9:39 pm

  You are just a xenophobe and probably are ready to flip someone upside down for saying anything negative about Christianity but you think it’s funny to take a name like Danish Artist because that incites Muslims. I’m Catholic and pro life but that doesn’t make me hate anyone it’s just the path I chose. I work with all kinds of fascinating people gay straight human and surprisingly non human and I find that kind of diversity refreshing. But you don’t because America the place you were born by the sheer blessing of the Almighty is somehow not enough you need to hate too.

  And yes you can request a copy of any warrant ever issued in the United States save for a FISA warrant because all deliberations and papers related to FISA fall under the classification “Secret.” If you knew something other than you hate Muslims and you should pull your britches down before you poop Danish Artist you would be a truly dangerous boy.

  My site is useless? Where’s yours? Why don’t you take your lunch hour at the nursing home or the Mega-Lo-Mart and nip on over to wordpress and build a site and then you can be as Radical as Jeremiah Wright! Or you could grow a set and come and comment over where I blog and the Editors there never ban anyone!

• 31. Danish Artist  |  May 7th, 2008 at 7:10 am

  Gabby like Diane and all the others from the daily pitchfork continue to deflect from the topic.

  “poop….nursing home…mega-lo-mart…..”

  How juvenile of you Gabby!

  Not getting much use out your website I see.

  Pathetic

• 32. Some Assembly Required  |  May 7th, 2008 at 9:36 am

  29. Danish Artist | May 6th, 2008 at 9:39 pm

  Typical wing nut, grab one sentence from a post and pretend like nothing followed it.

  Incidentally, Valerie Plame was a CIA operative and she was outed by high ranking members of the Bush administration. I do believe Scooter Libby was convicted for lying in that controversy.

  “Bush most recently addressed the issue in July after commuting Libby’s 30-month prison term. He acknowledged that some in the White House were involved in the leak. Then, after repeatedly declining to discuss the ongoing investigation, he said the case was closed and it was time to move on.”

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/21/AR2007112100207_2.html

  As for the dismissal of judges, theres nothing wrong with that. All presidents do it. It was the circumstances why it was done that raised so many questions and inquires. Considering of course the judges were appointed by the Bush Adminstration in the first place. Again, there has been no concrete evidence proving any criminal activity. The difference between the situations, Clinton and Berger are know longer in an position to affect US policy. hindsight is better than 20/20.

• 33. Danish Artist  |  May 7th, 2008 at 9:59 am

  SAR,

  stop with the talking points. Remind me who was convicted of out Plame when it was know who did it? Who was convicted? Libby was convicted for “lying”, but who was convicted for releasing her name? Who was indicted?

  No one! Apparently, the courts did not see a crime being committed, since she was no undercover at the time.

  If anyone needs to moveon, it’s you libs!

  “As for the dismissal of judges, theres nothing wrong with that.”

  Apparently, you did not get the memo SAR. Of course there is nothing to it. But, Liberals across the nation are screaming for the release of memos, email and documents concerning this matter. Why are the libs jumping up and down for this information if no crime was committed, as you say???

  Again, when it’s your guys under the microscope, you have nothing to say and dismiss the matter - talk about putting party before country!

  I grow bored with you mental midgets.

• 34. Some Assembly Required  |  May 7th, 2008 at 11:31 am

  DA, I have to ask you, have you read anything that I have said or do you just read the first sentence of each paragraph?

  We are spinning in circles

• 35. Danish Artist  |  May 7th, 2008 at 12:18 pm

  SAR,

  No dude, you are spinning in circles or just spinning - that’s what you libs are best at.

  Obviously you did not read the whole post.

  Remind me who was indicted/convicted for “outing” Plame?

  Liberal talking points (lies) before reality. Party before country, you hack.

  I am now definitely bored with you mental midgets.

• 36. Some Assembly Required  |  May 7th, 2008 at 1:43 pm

  Neurotic projection:

  perceiving others as operating in ways one unconsciously finds objectionable in yourself.

• 37. Danish Artist  |  May 7th, 2008 at 7:25 pm

  Again, SAR, who was indicted/convicted for “outing” PLAME?

  Well?????

  Well????

  Thought so.

  Keep covering for your libs in all circumstances - you nailed it when you said party before country.

  Well as Wright said, the chickens will come home to roost.