Speaking of Sandy Berger. I’ve been thinking about something here today and I want to run an idea by you. It’s this. Throughout this whole Sandy Berger mess, the context there, the focus of this story has been, what did he take out of there? He went in there, we know spent 30 hours in there, and took 40 to 50 pages of notes. And took the notes out of there, and there are some documents missing and some people say there are some original documents. But, he took the stuff home, and my question is, what if the focus is not what he took out, but what he put back? What if he took some stuff out that had notes in the margins that would make the Clinton administration look bad in a 9/11 Commission report atmosphere, notes that say they didn’t take. Well, we know the 9/11 Commission report identified four separate occasions where Berger said “no” to efforts to get bin Laden. This is in the 9/11 Commission report, four separate times from 1998 to 2000 Berger said “no.” And I remind you to check out that piece by Martin Peretz in The New Republic online last week. That’s the liberal version of National Review, and they just creamed Sandy Berger. And Martin Peretz is one of Gore’s big supporters and underwriters. Folks, it was merciless in its treatment of Berger. So no less than four times he was given chances to get bin Laden, and said “no,” while he was running shoat, while Clinton was preoccupied with other domestic issues (clearing throat) in the late portion of his second term.
So what if, where this millennium bomber thing is concerned, what if — it’s just an idea, I admit it’s speculation — but what if what really happened was Berger was changing the record? What if he was taking things out and writing new notes in the margins and putting those back, or trying to? I don’t know if it’s possible. There was some surveillance in that room, so it’s possible to know this if the investigation will go there. There’s some people who fear that the Bush administration, the justice department, will go easy on this to avoid any appearance of partisanship during this presidential campaign. But the House is going to have their own investigation in this. And it would be interesting if they go that direction. What did he put back, not what did he take out, or in addition to what he took out.
<*ICON*>Your Resource for Combating the Partisan Media, Liberals and Bush-Haters…
<a target=new href=”/home/menu/fstack.guest.html”>(…Rush’s John F. Kerry Stack of Stuff packed with quotes, flips & audio!)</a></span>