• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Berger Bungle no Big Deal for Demos

N

namvet

Sandy Berger, senior national security officer under Clinton, pleaded guilty on April lst to stealing highly classified documents from the National Archives--an act he committed to probably save the Clinton Administration from extreme embarrassment for its lackadaisical attitude on national security. The documents, which he stuffed into his socks and trousers, related to terror threats during the year 2000 millenium period (Y2K). This sensitive material was scheduled for review by the 9/11Commission in the preparation of its final report. Berger will receive a $10,000 fine and temporarily lose his security clearance. He could have gone to jail. Many beileve he committed this idiotic act to prevent the Commission members from seeing the comments written on the reports by him and others in the Clinton White House. According to a Justice Department official interviewed in the Wall Street Journal, one document was a highly critical review of anti-terror measures associated with Y2K. Clearly, these comments must have been, at the very least, embarrassing--and probably indicative of a careless official attitude toward terror before the 9/11/01 attacks. They may have further betrayed incompetence, or rampant political correctness taking precedence over national security and protection of the homeland. Evidence of such an attitude in the Clinton White House is legend.

The Millenium Report was authored by Richard Clarke, the National Security Council’s counterterrorism chief, who testified at the 9/11 Commission hearings. The report primarily concerned the Jihadist plot to bomb the Los Angeles Airport by bringing explosives into the US at the Canadian border, according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz. The plot was foiled by a diligent US border agent who inspected the Jihadist’s rental car and found the explosives. What were Clark’s recommendations accompaying this report, and how would they have been received? Clark, Berger and Clinton already knew that Osama bin Laden was behind the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, and the destruciton of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Perhaps Clark recommended a decisive strike to kill bin Laden, whom Clinton had refused to take custody of in 1996, when offered up by Sudan. Since we will never know for certain what recommendations and comments were in the papers, here are some possibilities. based on the known actions and attitudes of Clinton Administration members--

Check more closely all materials being carried by, and transportion conveying, persons holding middle eastern passports, especially passports from states known to harbor, or support, terrorists: This was completely counter to Clinton’s policy of open borders and globalization. It would also clash with prohibitions on racial profiling, and the promotion of multiculturalism and diversity. (Interestingly, Hillary Clinton has now shifted gears in her makeover for the presidential run in 2008. She now supports tougher rules for border entry and in general is attempting to demonstrate her awareness of the threat of foreign terrorism from our southern border. Some say this is hypocriscy.)

Tear down the artificial wall between intelligence and criminal investigations that prevented the CIA and FBI from sharing information--a wall built higher by the Clinton Administration when it became apparent through the testimony of seveal eyewitnesses that the Oklahoma City (OKC) bombing might have been abetted by middle eastern terrorists: This evidence is described in investigative reporter Jayna Davis’ book “The Third Terrorist.” Since Clinton quashed the investigation, and the FBI “lost” over 20 statements from citizens who had evidence of a middle eastern connection to OKC, it was clear that Clinton wanted nothing to do with heightened security or a concerted counterterrorism program.

Don’t issure anymore “get out of jail free” passes to terrorists: Early in his administration, Clinton had released dangerous Central American terrorists from prison in the US, to demonstrate that he would not obstruct Marxist revolutionaries actively “building socialism” with guns or bombs. In August 1999, he pardoned 16 members of the Puerto Rican terrorist group FALN who committed 130 bombings, to help Hillary get Hispanic votes for her New York senate race. He also freed domestic terrorists who killed police officers in their rebellion against “the system.” (The “system” is short for the law-abiding.)

Preempt any further terrorist plans to strike in the US: In his book “Dereliction of Duty,” former Clinton military aide Air Force Lietenant Colonel “Buzz” Patterson writes that in the summer of 1996, Clinton was warned in a CIA brief about a terrorist plot involving the bombing of US commercial jets--and the crashing of one into the CIA headquarters. Was Clinton reminded of the possibilty that such plans still existed and warranted increased security at the nation’s airports--an initiative already rejected by Clinton on Al Gore’s advice in 1993?

If you believe that all of this will result in Berger becoming a non-person in any future government, think again. Berger earlier advised candidate John Kerry, and during the runup to Berger’s sentencing, Senator Hillary Clinton was consulting with him on an upcoming trip to the European Security Conference. Indications are that Berger would hold a high national security or State Department post in a Hillary Clinton administration. No wonder that American voters have no confidence in the Democrats’ dedication to national security, or their ability to protect and defend the country. This is one reason why the voters have rejected the Democatic Party in the last 2 national elections. Clinton and “soft on terror” allies such as Berger no longer enjoy the voter’s trust--nor should they given Berger’s actions at the Archives. This is proof that the majority of voters are not stupid--despite what liberals tend to believe.

namvet.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom