Video: Missing ‘Path to 9/11′ scenes

posted at 10:04 pm on January 28, 2007 by Ian

On his Sunday show, Sean Hannity aired the following scenes that were removed from ABC’s docu-drama, ‘The Path to 9/11′:


Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters analyzes further.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

That’s the war fighting strategy we’re about to go back to. Carter-esque.

Buck Turgidson on January 28, 2007 at 10:13 PM

Spineless Bastard. We may have a clue as to what he stole now.

R D on January 28, 2007 at 10:15 PM

Oh man…

asc85 on January 28, 2007 at 10:23 PM

Not to worry. Hillary will go get the bad man, Bill Clinton Osama bin Laden.

Entelechy on January 28, 2007 at 10:37 PM

OK folks lets expose the candidates for what they are BEFORE the election this time mmkay! Lets see Clinton got his library and to hang with George Sr. and the fly girls on the Tsumani over Asia tour. Sandy Burgular got a pardon, and obsconded with the goods. Dubya gets public humiliation, possible impeachment and mabey worse, to be tried for criminal charges. Theres a weasel in the hen house.

sonnyspats1 on January 28, 2007 at 10:52 PM

It’s turned into a weasel house,sonnypats1, there are but a few decent people left in the halls of government, most are out for themselves.

bbz123 on January 28, 2007 at 11:01 PM

You know……. am I the only one getting tired of the “shadow government” left over from the Clinton years subverting any chance of the United States winning a war for it’s existence, especially if it is being run by a Repulican in the Oval Office???

They never ask the question, “Horay, we lost…. now we can talk to the terrorist……. wait, I was on your side….. wait……. nooooooooo, somebody help me……. SOMEBODY????… aaacchhkkkk… choke… AAANEDNCKKGKNG… {sound of sawing with a blunt, rusty blade…. {chanting by the terrorists} “God is Great”, “God is Great”……

Let them make a film about that…..

PinkyBigglesworth on January 28, 2007 at 11:07 PM

This is why there is a movement in Washington to have scripts approved before filming can begin. Which party do you think is behind that notion?

bbz123 on January 28, 2007 at 11:09 PM

They never ask the question, “Horay, we lost…. now we can talk to the terrorist……. wait, I was on your side….. wait……. nooooooooo, somebody help me……. SOMEBODY????… aaacchhkkkk… choke… AAANEDNCKKGKNG… {sound of sawing with a blunt, rusty blade…. {chanting by the terrorists} “God is Great”, “God is Great”……

Let them make a film about that…..

PinkyBigglesworth on January 28, 2007 at 11:07 PM

ROFL I know its not funny but,I’m gettin tired. Just link to Micheal Savage’s web site he’s got a nice selection of the Islamic welcoming committee that awaits the San Francisco crowd. It’d be like Gene Wilder in the Richard Prior flic., when he tries to cozy up to the big convict in the cafateria in the pen. Did you see that flic?

sonnyspats1 on January 28, 2007 at 11:34 PM

I’m honestly less concerned about this supposedly fictional scene, and more concerned about what the hell was in those documents he desperately stuffed in his pants and socks, hid under the construction trailer and later destroyed. Why does no one care?!

RightWinged on January 29, 2007 at 12:46 AM

Ya know if the Archives had copies and knew what was taken, which they do, I want them declasified and made public. (with the proper blacking out of agents and informants names of course) I certainly don’t want a repeat of what happend in the Olly North trial.

- The Cat

MirCat on January 29, 2007 at 1:19 AM

I’m honestly less concerned about this supposedly fictional scene, and more concerned about what the hell was in those documents

… printouts of documents …

he desperately stuffed in his pants and socks hid under the construction trailer and later destroyed.

Socks, eh. Got anything to back that up other than unsubstantiated claims in the media?

Why does no one care?!

Well, there’s the fact that the documents are classified, how’s that for starters? Are you willing to subvert national security to satisfy personal curiosity?

And since you’re such a curious fellow, have you had any luck finding out who forged the yellowcake uranium documents? Tackling any promising leads?

MKR on January 29, 2007 at 1:28 AM

I want them declasified and made public.

Another person willing to subvert national security in order to satisfy personal curiosity.

MKR on January 29, 2007 at 1:31 AM

Spineless Bastard. We may have a clue as to what he stole now.

Bingo. Berger was granted access to the archives to REVIEW documents in preparation for Clinton’s and his own appearances before the 9/11 commission. Why did he take multiple copies of any classified documents? How many does it take to review?

He “cleaned” the most damaging evidence of Democrat administration malfeasance, without a question. I was convinced of that the day the story first hit, and everything like this docudrama since has affirmed that opinion.

Why does no one care?!

RW, I think that a more disturbing question at this point is why did the current administration allow the non-sentence following Berger’s conviction? Some sort of collusion between political buddies Clinton and Bush 41? A secret agenda among globalists? Another Bush attempt to be nice to the Dems?

There is one, and only one, answer that would please me, but if so, we’ll never know about it. That would be that Berger offered up information of a more valuable nature in return for his $50,000 wrist-slap.

Freelancer on January 29, 2007 at 1:32 AM

I want them declasified and made public.

Another person willing to subvert national security in order to satisfy personal curiosity.

Another person willing to make pointless and specious arguments favoring a Clinton.

Many documents are classified in spite of having no impact on national security, even though that is supposed to be the measure by which a classification is determined. If the documents do nothing more than prove Clinton blew multiple opportunities to capture OBL, or perhaps provide direct evidence of the technology transfers to China, then their publication would not “subvert national security”.

I, like you, don’t want dangerous documents exposed merely to prove Clinton was a bad president who harmed this nation. But I remain convinced that nothing Berger took from the archives was actually harmful to national security, just embarassing to the Clinton administration legacy.

Freelancer on January 29, 2007 at 1:39 AM

Freelancer,

Your argument would be valid if Berger removed original documents from the NSA.

The original documents are located on NSA digital storage. Berger made paper printouts of them.

No original documents were removed, no original documents were destroyed.

The information remains for all with the appropriate level of security clearance to see.

Another person willing to make pointless and specious arguments favoring a Clinton.

You’re right. Characterising rumour and innuendo as fact should not be challenged under any circumstances. What was I thinking?

But I remain convinced that nothing Berger took from the archives was actually harmful to national security, just embarassing to the Clinton administration legacy.

And what fuels that belief?

MKR on January 29, 2007 at 1:47 AM

To illustrate how much, how shall we say it… bovine manure is being flagrantly flung all over the place, let’s look at the words of the Republican appointed lead prosecutor in reference some of the various claims about Sandy Berger that have been raised here:

“so inaccurate as to be laughable.”

Hmm… Not really a ringing endorsement.

MKR on January 29, 2007 at 2:14 AM

Well, there’s the fact that the documents are classified, how’s that for starters? Are you willing to subvert national security to satisfy personal curiosity?

And since you’re such a curious fellow, have you had any luck finding out who forged the yellowcake uranium documents? Tackling any promising leads?

MKR on January 29, 2007 at 1:28 AM

Okay, it’s not about personal curiosity… it’s about the fact that he had no reason to sneak and destroy something if it was simply printouts.. You can believe that all you want, but setting that aside, I can prove you’re just a partisan Kos type Klown, right now…

Yellow cake “forged documents”, eh? What the hell does that have to do with anything? That wasn’t what the “16 words” in the SOTU were about. The words referred to BRITISH INTELLIGENCE WHICH STILL STANDS BY ITS CLAIMS, and even the former Prime Minster of Niger CONFIRMS THE CLAIMS THAT SADDAM DID SEEK TO BUY IT FROM HIM (Just as Bush said)!!! Now I know geniuses like you somehow spin the fact that Saddam didn’t buy any (which Bush didn’t claim) in to an argument that he lied, but the simple fact is that by doing so, YOU are the liars. I don’t give a sh** who said “the line shouldn’t have been in there”, etc. etc. the fact is it had NOTHING to do with these forged documents you stupid clowns obsess over.

Now run along disingenuous lib.

RightWinged on January 29, 2007 at 2:43 AM

Yellow cake “forged documents”, eh? What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Documents… Unanswered questions… Can you see the connection?

That wasn’t what the “16 words” in the SOTU were about.

I didn’t say anything about the “16 words”.

You brought it up.

But since we’re on the subject, which country *do* you think the 16 words referred to?

Was there another yellowcake uranium allegation that the administration bungled, if thier current position of “these 16 words should never have been included” has any meaning?

No, I am referring to testimony from George Tenet and Colin Powell to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

While you’re looking that up, why don’t you have a look at the State Department fact sheet concerning Iraq’s weapons, and in it, yellowcake uranium.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/16118.htm

The words referred to BRITISH INTELLIGENCE WHICH STILL STANDS BY ITS CLAIMS

Yes, I understand they stand behind thier claims, but I don’t think you’ll find them standing behind the documents.

and even the former Prime Minster of Niger CONFIRMS THE CLAIMS THAT SADDAM DID SEEK TO BUY IT FROM HIM

No, he didn’t confirm that at all.

But even if he did, I don’t care. I’m specifically talking about the forged yellowcake documents, which are proven forgeries.

The question remains: Who forged them, and why? Can you answer this question? Are you even remotely interested as to why someone would forge documents that ended up being used as evidence to support a position of military engagement?

Now I know geniuses like you somehow spin the fact that Saddam didn’t buy any

You are doing something I notice is very popular on this site. You are inventing my argument as you go and countering it with your own.

I believe this is called a “strawman”.

(which Bush didn’t claim) in to an argument that he lied, but the simple fact is that by doing so, YOU are the liars.

You have just called me a liar while pretending to understand what my argument is, before I have even presented it.

I don’t give a sh** who said “the line shouldn’t have been in there”, etc. etc. the fact is it had NOTHING to do with these forged documents you stupid clowns obsess over.

I don’t care about the State Of The Union speech. The President was speaking to those with no knowledge and no apparent capacity to improve that position, such as yourself.

The documents were presented as evidence in a public forum well before the State Of The Union.

Even Christopher Hitchens, the hypocritical darling of the right concludes that they are false.

MKR on January 29, 2007 at 3:10 AM

Now run along disingenuous lib.

Speaking of disingenuous, let’s have a look at your response:

1) You personally attacked me;
2) You completely ignored my challenging of your “facts”;
3) You responded to one sentence of my original comment with a rant in which you second guessed the reasoning behind my comment and completely invented a false argument, put it in my mouth and then attempted to refute it (by the way, you didn’t even do a very good job of refuting a false argument);
4) From your false argument you conclude that I am a liar;
5) You close by concluding that I am a “lib”, when I have never voted for a liberal in my life.

Now, I can take the personal attacks, because I know that that’s all you can really offer.

I’ll be mortally stunned if you can debate the actual issue.

MKR on January 29, 2007 at 3:21 AM

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough about blacking out sensitive info, shame on me. The fact remains, not exposing liberals (the exposure of them is one of the reasons I followed Ian from ExposeTheLeft to HotAir) for what they are and having the public blindly voting them into office IS A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE!! Yes, I recommend everyone read Ann’s book “Treason”.

- The Cat

MirCat on January 29, 2007 at 3:27 AM

I’ll be mortally stunned if you can debate the actual issue.

MKR on January 29, 2007 at 3:21 AM

Troll, why don’t you just get a hobby? Watch birds or play the piano, okay? You aren’t nearly as clever as you think you are, and no one here wants to have another femme-troll biting at their ankles every time they post a comment

It’s easy to nit-pick and take words and phrases out of context, and throw up the Usual talking points. We’ve heard all of your stuff before, and someone else will come along after you and say the same tired worthless garbage, with the same Lack of Effect

Janos Hunyadi on January 29, 2007 at 4:00 AM

Troll, why don’t you just get a hobby? Watch birds or play the piano, okay? You aren’t nearly as clever as you think you are, and no one here wants to have another femme-troll biting at their ankles every time they post a comment

More personal attacks with no substance.

Thankyou, come again.

MKR on January 29, 2007 at 4:07 AM

Troll

Janos Hunyadi on January 29, 2007 at 4:11 AM

Clintonista MKR writes: “have you had any luck finding out who forged the yellowcake uranium documents?”

It was our good allies, the French. Didn’t you know? They fed it to the Italians. Next Question?

“The question remains: Who forged them, and why? Can you answer this question?”

Asked and answered. Next?

“Your argument would be valid if Berger removed original documents from the NSA.

The original documents are located on NSA digital storage. Berger made paper printouts of them.

No original documents were removed, no original documents were destroyed.”

Not true. Berger, by his own admission, took documents that had HAND WRITTEN NOTES on them. The addition of hand written notes makes the “original documents.”

Berger stole orignal documents of which there were no copies.

georgej on January 29, 2007 at 5:24 AM

Because for a troll this is the only thing in their pathetic lives… and when they get done here, they scurry over to the DU and Kos to brag about their cleverness.

go to Niger

Bob on January 29, 2007 at 5:54 AM

It was our good allies, the French. Didn’t you know? They fed it to the Italians. Next Question?

No, I didn’t know that actually. Care to provide a source?

One with a name, preferably.

“The question remains: Who forged them, and why? Can you answer this question?”

Asked and answered. Next?

Nice try, but no. For starters you have not answered why, and secondly, you’ve simply given me a conspiracy theory based on nothing other than wild speculation.

Vincent Cannistraro, a 27 year veteran of Intelligence services including positions such as Director of Intelligence Programs for the U.S. National Security Council amongst other, has even wilder speculation: the documents were produced in the United States from within the CIA and then fed to the Italians.

Which conspiracy theory will you believe today?

Not true. Berger, by his own admission, took documents that had HAND WRITTEN NOTES on them.

No, he did not admit to that at all. In fact, great lengths have been taken by the prosection team to end this internets rumour. Please refer to the following Wall Street Journal article, and notably, the EDITORIAL PAGE.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006534

Did you notice the final sentence?

“Meanwhile, conservatives don’t do themselves any credit when they are as impervious to facts as the loony left.”

The addition of hand written notes makes the “original documents.”

Again, and sadly, you are mistaken. The lead prosecutor completely refutes your assertions.

Berger stole orignal documents of which there were no copies.

That is an outright lie.

There is no real substance or validity to your argument whatsoever.

You are simply repeating everything you’ve ever been told by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Matt Drudge, etc. without ever, not even once, checking the facts for yourself.

MKR on January 29, 2007 at 6:31 AM

MKR, Troll.

Viper1 on January 29, 2007 at 7:58 AM

No, he did not admit to that at all. In fact, great lengths have been taken by the prosection team to end this internets rumour. Please refer to the following Wall Street Journal article, and notably, the EDITORIAL PAGE.

Well, allow me to retort.

At the time Mr. Berger made his misdemeanor plea agreement, we were assured by then-federal prosecutor Noel Hillman that there was no evidence that Mr. Berger destroyed or intended to destroy any original documents. That was, strictly speaking, true. But during three of Mr. Berger’s four visits to the Archives in 2002 and 2003, the former National Security Adviser did have access to original documents of which no adequate inventory existed or exists.

If you’re going to quote the Wall Street Journal, you might one to quote an article that isn’t 2 years old when there is one on the same topic 2 weeks old.

Or you could just read the words of Tom Davis, the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee on the release of his staff investigation into Berger’s activities.

“The public statements of the former chief of the public integrity section, Noel Hillman, were incomplete and misleading. Because Mr. Berger had access to original documents that he could have taken without detection, we do not know if anything ‘was lost to the public or the process.’

misleading and incomplete. That’s Washington speak for he lied. Yes indeed, the committee said the guy in the WSJ article you quoted was lying.

Here, read the whole thing. No Rush Limbaugh or Shawn Hannity included.

I would think this would interest a curious person like yourself.

JackStraw on January 29, 2007 at 8:05 AM

MKR, Troll.

Viper1, Ostrich.

MKR on January 29, 2007 at 8:06 AM

From the video:

The president has approved every snatch plan presented for our review.

No wonder Clinton went nuclear.

Valiant on January 29, 2007 at 9:02 AM

The ACLU must have been too busy preventing some school from having a moment of silent meditation to bother with this politically motivated act of censorship.

Btw, can you imagine the sh*tstorm that would have erupted if Rove had been caught stuffing those documents in his pants? Although it would have been harder for Rove, since he has kojones.

smellthecoffee on January 29, 2007 at 9:03 AM

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

There is no real substance or validity to your argument whatsoever.

Ooooooo, I’m dyin’!! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! You’re killing me! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Do it again.

TwinkietheKid on January 29, 2007 at 9:03 AM

‘We have deep depth’- Yogi Berra

Limerick on January 29, 2007 at 9:04 AM

MKR, Troll.

Viper1, Ostrich.

Neener neener neener. Look, I have two kids, aged 4 and 7 whose main hobby is talking to each other like this. I run down to the basement and log on to hotair.com to hear this crap? If I wanted this crap, I’d just go back upstairs.

smellthecoffee on January 29, 2007 at 9:11 AM

Btw, MKR, somebody’s really ripping you over on that thread about Ann Coulter. Just thought you’d wanta know.

smellthecoffee on January 29, 2007 at 9:49 AM

MKR,

Let’s forget about your trivial arguments for a minute, and focus on the inexplainable actions of Berger. Forget about whether the docs were originals or printouts, had handwritten notes or didn’t have them.

How do YOU explain his odd behavior of stashing documents in his shorts and socks, rather than putting them in his attache and leaving like an innocent person would? That’s a giant red flag comrade, and you know it.

So he chose to hide the documents because ………..?

fogw on January 29, 2007 at 10:00 AM

Oooh… Busted!

wdlp1965 on January 29, 2007 at 10:03 AM

I’ll be mortally stunned if you can debate the actual issue.
MKR on January 29, 2007 at 3:21 AM

So let me get this correct MKR, Mr. Berger stole documents and hid them or disposed of them under a construction trailer because he was a klepto or it is a hobby? You are debating and defending someone who broke national security laws, kind of like saying the bank robber only stole money from the people who didn’t need it, so leave him alone. Regardless, you think Mr. Berger is an upstanding citizen, and you are proud of him representing the Democratic party.

JackStraw on January 29, 2007 at 8:05 AM

Nice job JackStraw, MKR is a very good googler. But when presented with facts, that he so yearned for, he dissappeared. Facts to a liberal is like krptonite to superman, as Mr. Elder puts it.
Be sure to read that Wall Street Journal, you seem to like and respect their opinions.

right2bright on January 29, 2007 at 10:09 AM

Hey MKR. Check this out from todays WSJ OpinionJournal:

Prosecutors accepted Mr. Berger’s assurance that he had taken only five documents from the archives, even though on three of his four visits there he had access to original working papers of the National Security Council for which no adequate inventory exists. Nancy Smith, the archives official who provided the materials to Mr. Berger, said that she would “never know what if any original documents were missing.” We have only Mr. Berger’s word that he didn’t take anything else. The Justice Department secured his agreement to take a polygraph on the matter, but never followed through and administered it.

The issue is still relevant. Officials of the 9/11 Commission are now on record expressing “grave concern” about the materials to which Mr. Berger had access. A report from the National Archives Inspector General last month found he took extraordinary measures to spirit them out of the archives, including hiding them in his pockets and socks. He also went outside without an escort and put some documents under a construction trailer, from where he could later retrieve them.

Legit enough for you?

So it would seem you might be the ostrich here; and talking out your ass to boot.

techno_barbarian on January 29, 2007 at 10:15 AM


Well, there’s the fact that the documents are classified, how’s that for starters? Are you willing to subvert national security to satisfy personal curiosity?

So, MKR, you were probably blasting the NYT for running the phone intercept program story, right?? Or was that not subverting national security?

BTW, are you using a laptop, or are there desktop computers in your study hall?

TugboatPhil on January 29, 2007 at 10:22 AM

Let’s forget about your trivial arguments for a minute, and focus on the inexplainable actions of Berger. Forget about whether the docs were originals or printouts, had handwritten notes or didn’t have them.

How do YOU explain his odd behavior of stashing documents in his shorts and socks, rather than putting them in his attache and leaving like an innocent person would? That’s a giant red flag comrade, and you know it.

Doh! Stole my thunder, fogw. Why is an intelligent individual, possibly a genius in my estimation, like MKR acting as an apologist for actions which clearly are in violation of some statute? It just boggles the mind. Thus was a noble mind o’erthrown. It is positively Shakespearean in its tragic proportions.

smellthecoffee on January 29, 2007 at 10:25 AM

Most tragic, Shakespearean or not, is the fact that this Admin. gave the burgler and Mr. Clinton an almost complete pass.

Hillary will not give this Admin. a millimeter.

Entelechy on January 29, 2007 at 12:53 PM

OK kids, back to the show.

10 to 13 times the Clinton’s had the chance to kill bin hidin. Each time he chickened out. Then, like a traitor, he boasts on national TV that he tried and tried to kill UBL..’MORE than any one else’. What a bunch of lies. Thats about all he does more than anyone else…lies and more lies.

I don’t know why they didn’t bring up my favorite ‘don’t shoot’ moment. Bin Laden was in a tent with a prince, no doubt about this one, he was there. But the Saudi prince has a dad who is about to buy some F-16′s from the Clinton Admin for BILLIONS of dollars. So it came down to money. They didn’t want to upset a Saudi with BIG money by killing his kid who happens to be best tea buds with UBL.

So every time you here the Dems talk about reducing the deficit, remember they did this INSTEAD of killing the most wanted terrorist in the whole WORLD for all time. ( well maybe second to muhammed(pissbeuponhim)

Thanks willie, burgler, madam nobright.

OH YEAH, this was two years before 9/11, in 1999.

shooter on January 29, 2007 at 1:19 PM

Aside from the fact that it’s odd how desperate you are to defend Berger here, why debate “facts” with you? I can spend my entire day picking apart each and every one of your lies and distortions, or I can dismiss you and have a productive day. Hmmm, what should I choose?

For yet another example of your being a dishonest turd (as an example for why I’m not going to waste my time with you) I made the claim that the former PM of Niger said that Saddam did seek to buy Uranium from him, you replied:

No, he didn’t confirm that at all.

But even if he did, I don’t care. I’m specifically talking about the forged yellowcake documents, which are proven forgeries.

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

Now, again, I’m not sure what any of this has to do with Sandy Berger… And by the way, we hate to pull the strawman out on you, but liberals are very predictable because you all operate from a pretty similar playbook, spouting the same BS year after year, and what we try to do is preempt your ridiculous and predictable arguments before you make them to save everyone time. It’s not that we’re trying to put words in your mouth. It’s that because you’re a liberal, you’re predictable and we already know what those words are going to be.

Now, back on topic… I noticed you linking to an Opinion Journal piece above… interesting, because it just so happens that Michelle Malkin is linking to one today:
http://opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009591

Prosecutors accepted Mr. Berger’s assurance that he had taken only five documents from the archives, even though on three of his four visits there he had access to original working papers of the National Security Council for which no adequate inventory exists. Nancy Smith, the archives official who provided the materials to Mr. Berger, said that she would “never know what if any original documents were missing.” We have only Mr. Berger’s word that he didn’t take anything else. The Justice Department secured his agreement to take a polygraph on the matter, but never followed through and administered it.

And again, why go through all of the following for “print outs”?

The issue is still relevant. Officials of the 9/11 Commission are now on record expressing “grave concern” about the materials to which Mr. Berger had access. A report from the National Archives Inspector General last month found he took extraordinary measures to spirit them out of the archives, including hiding them in his pockets and socks. He also went outside without an escort and put some documents under a construction trailer, from where he could later retrieve them.

After archives staff became suspicious of Mr. Berger during his third visit, they numbered some of the documents he looked at. After he left, they reviewed the documents and noted that No. 217 was missing. The next time he came, the staff gave him another copy of 217 with the comment that it had been inadvertently not made available to him during his previous visit. Mr. Berger appropriated the same document again.

Oh, I just figured out why you and your breed don’t think the Berger situation was a big deal… It was buried in YOUR papers:

The Inspector General’s report found that the papers Mr. Berger took outlined the adequacy of the government’s knowledge of terrorist threats in the U.S. in the final months of the Clinton administration–documents that could have been of some interest to the 9/11 Commission, before which Mr. Berger was scheduled to testify. The Washington Post buried news of the Inspector General’s report on page 7; the New York Times dumped it on page 36.

Philip Zelikow and Daniel Marcus, respectively the executive director and general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, told Mr. Davis’s investigators that they were never told Mr. Berger had access to original classified documents for which no copies existed. Had he known, Mr. Zelikow says, he would had “grave concern.”

I don’t think I need to go on.

RightWinged on January 29, 2007 at 2:41 PM

Poof – MKR is gone after things got very uncomfortable. MKR has got to be a former Clinton staffer or something – trying way too hard to stick up for Burglar, of all people. Seriously, how can anybody stick up for that guy?

Rick on January 30, 2007 at 1:34 AM

Thankyou, come again.

MKR on January 29, 2007 at 4:07 AM

Troll, doesn’t your ass get tired?

Janos Hunyadi on January 30, 2007 at 3:04 AM

Aside from the fact that it’s odd how desperate you are to defend Berger here

Incorrect. You routinely make assumptions and pass them off as fact, and every now and then I feel like challenging them.

I really couldn’t care less about Sandy Berger.

For yet another example of your being a dishonest turd (as an example for why I’m not going to waste my time with you) I made the claim that the former PM of Niger said that Saddam did seek to buy Uranium from him, you replied:

No, he didn’t confirm that at all.

But even if he did, I don’t care. I’m specifically talking about the forged yellowcake documents, which are proven forgeries.

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

You might want to read the very article you have chosen to use as your source and then very carefully examine your original comment and my objection to it.

You said that the Prime Minister CONFIRMED the position that Iraq had sought yellowcake uranium from Niger.

Now, did he really CONFIRM what you say he CONFIRMED? Did discussions involving the sale of yellowcake uranium take place, and if so, how did Ibrahim handle the subject of a uranium trade proposal with a country under the thumb of stiff U.N. sanctions?

I haven’t checked a thesaurus for a while but I’m fairly certain that ASSUME is not a synonym for CONFIRM.

Now, again, I’m not sure what any of this has to do with Sandy Berger…

It has absolutely nothing to do with Sandy Berger, and everything to do with your curiosity when it comes to documents and unanswered questions. YOU were the one that started prattling about the State Of The Union speech and all matters concerned with the Niger affair other than the forged documents I referred to.

I have to chuckle over your remark about how desperate I am to defend Berger. Look at your explosive defense of George W. Bush at the mere mention of forged documents.

And by the way, we hate to pull the strawman out on you but liberals are very predictable because you all operate from a pretty similar playbook, spouting the same BS year after year, and what we try to do is preempt your ridiculous and predictable arguments before you make them to save everyone time. It’s not that we’re trying to put words in your mouth. It’s that because you’re a liberal, you’re predictable and we already know what those words are going to be.

So you’ve CONFIRMED that I am a liberal, have you?

Can you oppose this administration and not be liberal?

Not once have I offered or have been asked for my opinions on liberal philosophies, so I am finding it difficult to understand how you have objectively reached this conclusion.

If you’re game, why don’t you hit me with five questions on liberal philosophy and see where I really stand, as opposed to dishing out trademark slurs as a substitute for substance.

I’ll bet you won’t because you know you’ll probably have to let go of the only piece of ammunition, however misplaced, that you’ve got.

Now, back on topic… I noticed you linking to an Opinion Journal piece above… interesting, because it just so happens that Michelle Malkin is linking to one today:
http://opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009591

Prosecutors accepted Mr. Berger’s assurance that he had taken only five documents from the archives, …

WSJ flip-flop aside, here’s another version of the “he must have done it because we don’t know if he did or didn’t” allegation:

http://www.vanceholmes.com/court/mark_foley_kids.jpg

Mark Foley sexually interfered with those two kids. CONFIRMED FACT.

Oh, I just figured out why you and your breed don’t think the Berger situation was a big deal… It was buried in YOUR papers:

I don’t read the New York Times and I don’t read the Washington Post. You didn’t ask, but I feel inclined to tell you: I watch FOX News and read a Murdoch newspaper daily.

No wonder I am serially uninformed, eh?

The Inspector General’s report found that the papers Mr. Berger took outlined the adequacy of the government’s knowledge of terrorist threats …

I don’t think I need to go on.

Well, if you’re not interested in debating that issue you might want to explain why, if what you believe is correct, the Republican administered Department of Justice for all intents and purposes appears to the average punter as either a) tragically incompetent, or b) purposely lax in the investigation of a high profile federal crime.

MKR on January 30, 2007 at 3:50 AM

Poof – MKR is gone after things got very uncomfortable.

Do you sleep?

Do you have a job?

MKR on January 30, 2007 at 3:53 AM

“No, he did not admit to that at all. In fact, great lengths have been taken by the prosection team to end this internets rumour. Please refer to the following Wall Street Journal article, and notably, the EDITORIAL PAGE.”

Well, allow me to retort.

Uh huh, I couldn’t find anything about the handwritten notes in your retort that form the basis of the argument that Sandy Berger removed “original documents” (you did read what you were replying to, yes?)

Did Sandy Berger, by his own admission, remove documents with hand written notes on them, as alleged above?

If you’re going to quote the Wall Street Journal, you might one to quote an article that isn’t 2 years old when there is one on the same topic 2 weeks old.

Yeah, f*$k those flip floppers. I knew there was a reason I normally steered clear of them.

Or you could just read the words of Tom Davis, the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee

Excuse me, the what?

If there is one thing Tom Davis is known for, it’s not oversight.

on the release of his staff investigation into Berger’s activities.

“The public statements of the former chief of the public integrity section, Noel Hillman, were incomplete and misleading. Because Mr. Berger had access to original documents that he could have taken without detection, we do not know if anything ‘was lost to the public or the process.’

misleading and incomplete. That’s Washington speak for he lied. Yes indeed, the committee said the guy in the WSJ article you quoted was lying.

We do not know. That’s English speak for “we do not know”, no matter what you choose to wrap around it, and that’s the best argument coming from the former chairman who apparently found very little to investigate during his time.

Here, read the whole thing. No Rush Limbaugh or Shawn Hannity included.

I would think this would interest a curious person like yourself.

Thankyou for the link, though I had already read it.

I, for one, am amazed that the Tom Davis do-nothing House Government Reform Committee woke from thier slumber just in time to get this report out before they became the minority.

MKR on January 30, 2007 at 4:41 AM

Let’s forget about your trivial arguments for a minute, and focus on the inexplainable actions of Berger.

Righto.

Forget about whether the docs were originals or printouts, had handwritten notes or didn’t have them.

Got it.

How do YOU explain his odd behavior of stashing documents in his shorts and socks, rather than putting them in his attache and leaving like an innocent person would? That’s a giant red flag comrade, and you know it.

So he chose to hide the documents because ………..?

I don’t presume to have any understanding of Sandy Berger’s motives.

I’ve never met him. I’ve never been to the NSA. I don’t know what is contained within the documents. I’m not a witness to the case. I wasn’t present when the investigations took place.

So, in all honesty, how would *I* know what he did and why he did it unless the media made that judgement for me?

And how does the media’s version of events sit when the Republican appointed lead prosecutor largely refutes it?

MKR on January 30, 2007 at 5:00 AM

So let me get this correct MKR, Mr. Berger stole documents and hid them or disposed of them under a construction trailer because he was a klepto or it is a hobby?

Other than my post above, I’ve made no remarks whatsoever regarding why Sandy Berger took the actions he did.

You are debating and defending someone who broke national security laws

By quoting his Republican appointed prosecutor?

Was the prosecution also the defense?

kind of like saying the bank robber only stole money from the people who didn’t need it, so leave him alone.

Utterly illogical strawman argument.

Regardless, you think Mr. Berger is an upstanding citizen, and you are proud of him representing the Democratic party.

There wasn’t one bit of your message worth responding to, but I’m bored and I have time to kill.

MKR on January 30, 2007 at 5:08 AM

MKR on January 30, 2007 at 3:53 AM

Umm, you’re asking me about jobs and sleep??

Also, MKR, do us all a favor and go all the way back to the top of the comments on this thread – more specifically, when you decided to join in, and see for yourself if your arguments make sense. I think you will begin to notice a pattern, like talking out of both sides of your mouth. I meant to point this out to you on another thread about a week ago (or so), but didn’t have time (because yes, I do have a job). MKR, you argue just for arguments sake. Talk about jumping around. Also, what’s why are you fighting tooth and nail for Sandy Berger?? Even the rest of the Hot Air libs don’t bother with this guy.

Rick on January 30, 2007 at 1:15 PM

I don’t presume to have any understanding of Sandy Berger’s motives.

I’ve never met him. I’ve never been to the NSA. I don’t know what is contained within the documents. I’m not a witness to the case. I wasn’t present when the investigations took place.

So, MKR, you are defending Sandy Berger for purely partisan reasons. It doesn’t matter if what Berger did was right or wrong, he’s a Dem and you are going to make sure you stick up for him, no matter what. Somewhere in your heart, you want to believe that the evil GOP machine is to blame for all of it – they set him up.

Rick on January 30, 2007 at 1:41 PM