The Path to 9/11

[SkyPup]

Did anyone ever find out exactly what secret papers Sandy Berger stole and destroyed out of the National Archives?

 

[EddieWalker]

Rush said there was one minute that was removed from the show, otherwise, they played it in full with the added disclaimers.

I remember allot of the events that they depicted, but didn't have them in order very well, nor did I realize all the details and connection between the first bombing of the Twin Towers and how it led up to 9-11. The parts with the Marines at the Embassies were false. I was one, so that always jumps out at me, but otherwise, I'm not aware of any deviations from what I remember in the news.

What really struck me was the show Dateline put on right afterwards to try and make it seem like it wasn't accurate. They had some guy from the 9-11 commission tell that they only knew about *****'s location three times. He aslo said that the information couldn't be confirmed, so nothing was done because nobody knew if it was solid intel or not. He totally omitted the time Clinton gave the speech about Sudan offering him *****, but he turned them down because he didn't have a reason to hold him. Then he looked really foolish right afterwards when the news anchor told us real quick that ***** was postively identified two times by unmanned drones. They saw him, but couldn't kill him because both times it happened, the drones were not armed.

Of course, they didn't make the connection that they had earlier said that two US submarines were sitting off the coast 24/7 with missles ready to go if ***** was spotted.

I kept wondering why the missles were not launched when the guys flying the drones could see ***** on the ground????? They never brought it up, never made the connection, nor probably realized that they totally contridicted themselves on several points in just fifteen minutes.

Eddie

 

[MikePA]

Did anyone ever find out exactly what secret papers Sandy Berger stole and destroyed out of the National Archives?

They know the papers concerned after action memos dealing with UBL. I have not heard which papers he took, which ones he returned nor if the ones he took were the same ones he returned.

 

[_RaT_]

Did anyone ever find out exactly what secret papers Sandy Berger stole and destroyed out of the National Archives?

Skypup, you've been misled. He did not steal them! Just because they were in his pants and socks does not mean anything was intentional. I know lots of people that carry their papers around that way. Heck the other day I was looking all over for my Kubota manual, went to take a shower that evening having given up on ever finding the number of quarts my tractor took and as I dropped my pants, there it was!

 

[SkyPup]

LOL

I'm sure Sandy Buirger needed all the top secret documents he could stuff into his underpants.

And just think, all this time I figured he was just obese!

 

[dmccarty]

Guys I think you are being must unkind to Sandy! I mean Clinton and his top white house staff had an interview where they just all laughed and joked about how you just had to know and love Sandy! It was all a misunderstanding that Sandy took the documents. Sandy is a slob and not real organized, giggle giggle ha ha, you just have to see his desk to know how he is. Its just a big boo boo on Sandy's part. Got to love him.

I don't know if anyone else saw this interview but it was sick.

It was clear from the interview, at least to me, that Sandy knew what he was going to take and the rest had discussed the taking. I sure would like to know what was on the document.

FYI. I am not watching the docudrama or whatever it is called. I do think its very interesting that the Clinton Clique is screaming loud about the movie. I don't like dramitizations of history. History is interesting enough without having to add drama or take license with the facts. In spite of what I just said or in defense there of, I watched a program last night about two Marine recon units that stayed behind in Kafji(sp) during the first gulf war. While it seemed to be accurate, they could have provided the same information in 30 minutes instead of 60 if they had left out the fake/dramatizations.

What we are witnessing about this moving is why Historians like, frankly need, to wait a few decades/generation to really get the history as correct as possible. There a too many people with agenda's, you don't have all of the information now that you will have then, and time gives perspective.

Later,
Dan

 

[sendero]

I find it laughable when the "right" tries to claim Clinton didn't respond to terrorism. I was there. Every time he did ANYTHING, he was accused of "wagging the dog" or somesuch.

The record of his initiatives in this area are clear, and the level of opposition he received to them is a matter of record also. Those who think otherwise are simply engaging in revisionist fantasy, I'm getting older but my memory is not gone yet.

 

[_RaT_]

I find it laughable when the "right" tries to claim Clinton didn't respond to terrorism. I was there. Every time he did ANYTHING, he was accused of "wagging the dog" or somesuch.

The record of his initiatives in this area are clear, and the level of opposition he received to them is a matter of record also. Those who think otherwise are simply engaging in revisionist fantasy, I'm getting older but my memory is not gone yet.

After seeing the movie, I did not come out with the opinion that Clinton did nothing and that the film had a "revisionist" agenda. I too was alive and follow the media quite intensely (yes, even the "drive by" media which is a term I feel is incredibly accurate), I was however, never "there", I still have to rely on the many media sources. I am still however, in disbelief at the lack of concern about the Sandy Berger archive document swap. If you want to talk about revisionist, you might start there.

 

[MikePA]

I find it laughable when the "right" tries to claim Clinton didn't respond to terrorism. I was there. Every time he did ANYTHING, he was accused of "wagging the dog" or somesuch. The record of his initiatives in this area are clear, and the level of opposition he received to them is a matter of record also. Those who think otherwise are simply engaging in revisionist fantasy, I'm getting older but my memory is not gone yet.

In other words, when the show indicated multiple opportunities were missed in the 90s to eliminate UBL, they were incorrect?

 

[vmarc]

We have been terrorized for along time.Remember sky jackings,cruise ship hijackings,Klinghoffer and others?No one has done anything till now,and we're still not doing enough.We are in the fight of our lives and I think it will get much worse.I for one will not watch that stupid movie.The situation is too serious for me to get my information from the entertainment industry.It's hard to even trust the news media for all the facts.(Dan Rather?I'd rather not.)