Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
April 20, 2014, 07:32:26 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What was in the Documents Sandy Burgler?  (Read 489 times)
Mr. Intenseone
Guest
« on: December 21, 2006, 05:14:04 PM »

RUSH: All right, here's the Sandy Burglar stuff. By the way, this news coming out yesterday and today is a typical dump going into a slow news time. "Former national security advisor Sandy Berger removed classified documents from National Archives in 2003 and hid them under a construction trailer, the Archives inspector general reported yesterday." Now, this has been chalked up here to, "Sandy wasn't thinking," or "Sandy is sloppy," or "Sandy is such a hard worker," or Sandy this or Sandy that. He put it in his socks. He put the papers down his pants or whatever. Now we learn that he hid them under a construction trailer! There's malice here; there is thought. There was an attempt to deceive the authorities! This was genuine theft. It blows my mind that you've got Scooter Libby soon to go on trial for his freedom, having done nothing, and here's Sandy Burglar, who has admitted to the deed walking free after a $50,000 fine.

"This report that came out yesterday issued more than a year after Burglar pleaded guilty and received a criminal sentence for removal of the documents. Inspector General Paul Brachfeld reported that when [Burglar] was confronted by Archives officials about the missing documents, he said it was possible he threw them into his office trash. The report said that when Archives employees first suspected that [Burglar] was removing classified documents from the archives in the fall of '03, they didn't notice any law enforcement agency." Of course, why would they do that? It's the Clintons! Everybody lies about sex. Everybody lies about billing records. Everybody lies. Why not about classified documents? It's the Clintons. Why worry about it? Law enforcement and the Clintons? Don't make me laugh.

Now, Burglar, "who pleaded guilty to unlawfully removing and retaining the documents, was fined," 50 G's, "ordered to perform 100 hours of community service, barred from access to classified material for three years. The report said that when [Burglar] was reviewing the classified documents in the archives building a few blocks from the Capitol, employees saw him bending down and fiddling with something white, which could have been paper, around his ankle, however archives employees didn't feel at the time there was enough information to confront someone of [Burglar]'s stature. Brachfeld reported that on one visit [Burglar] took a break to go outside without an escort. In total during this visit he removed four documents. Mr. [Burglar] said he placed the documents under a trailer in an accessible construction area outside the main archives building." We know what he was doing now. "With the authorization of former President Clinton, [Burgla]r was reviewing national security documents on bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, Sudan, and related presidential correspondence. The review was to facilitate [Burglar]'s impending testimony before the House and Senate intelligence committees. That's not at all what was going on! We're going to go back to the archives of this program, July 20th, 2004. I want to play for you what I said behind this (tapping) very microphone on the very morning that the Burglar story broke.RUSH ARCHIVE: This is big, and I'll tell you why. The stuff that was stolen, the stuff that's probably now been shredded, the stuff that he just inadvertently sloppily can't find, you know what those documents contained? Elements of evidence that Al-Qaeda was in the country in 1999! It's all part of this millennium plot that the Clinton administration tried to take a lot of credit for stopping when in fact it was just good police work by a single Customs agent. It was not the result of any directive. This all came out in the 9/11 Commission Report as well, or the hearings. None of this is an accident. You don't go in there and inadvertently take things out when you're the national security advisor! You know what the rules you; you know that classified docs don't get taken out of the room. You know they don't get taken home. You know they don't get stuffed down your pants and socks. You know all of this.

RUSH: Yes, you do know all of this, yet Burglar did all of that, and he did all of that to save the Clinton administration a bunch of embarrassment and worse. He went in there -- I've always been amazed what he took out, yes, but what he put back in. What he removed, who knows? What he edited, what he put back in, that has always been a matter of curiosity to me. Here is Burglar also on July 20th of 2004, speaking to reporters in Washington about all of this. A portion of his remarks back then...

BURGLAR: Last year when I was in the archives r-r-reviewing documents, I made an honest mistake.

RUSH: Awwwwww!

BURGLAR: It is one that I deeply regret.

RUSH: Awwwwwww!

BURGLAR: Uh, I dealt with this issue in October 2003 fully and completely.

RUSH: (sobbing) He's so sorry! He's so sorry!

BURGLAR: Everything that I have done all along this process has been for the purpose of aiding and supporting the work of the 9/11 Commission --

RUSH: BS!

BURGLAR: -- and any suggestion to the contrary is simply absolutely wrong.

RUSH: I'm sorry, Mr. Burglar, we weren't buying it then, and we aren't buying it now. Now, here's some news on this. The Landmark Legal Foundation has been attempting via freedom of information laws to secure all versions and copies of the millennium after-action review. That's the document that Burglar was trying to destroy in its various forms at the Archives. This has been figured out a long time ago. Everybody is pretty much up to speed that that's what he was looking at. Now, the Landmark Legal Foundation just received a letter from the Clinton Presidential Library rejecting Landmark's appeal of their original denial of the Landmark request for all versions and copies of the reviewed document, being the millennium after-action review document. Now, this is significant, folks.

"As a matter of law, the Clinton Library has the authority to withhold documents they believe are classified under the presidential records act." That means that Clinton's people, along with the bureaucrats that run his massage parlor and library, will not release the documents that have been requested. So the people at Landmark Legal Foundation are now reviewing whether there's a legal basis for litigating the issue, but this is the point. These documents contain information that must you be stunning, information that most likely undermines Clinton's and Richard Clarke's contention that their administration did "everything possible to strengthen our counterterrorism activities." You know, Clinton can instruct the access to these documents under the cover of classified information for 12 years from the time he left the presidency. That's the law. Presidents can protect their own documents for 12 years afterwards, and once in a while the 12 years run out, the incumbent president can continue to withhold the documents if he so chooses. So Landmark is "seeking these documents under the Presidential Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act, both of which have multiple triggers built into them to make access to these documents very difficult unless Clinton relents," which he won't do. The real question here is: What must these documents contain? President Clinton, what information is in the millennium after-action review documents that are so damning, so devastating, so worrisome, that you refuse to release any of it? Remember the Clinton administration's unbelievably hysterical reaction to the TV miniseries, The Path to 9/11? Why were they so upset about it?

Because The Path to 9/11 tracked this country's history dealing with Al-Qaeda and terrorism and threats all during the Clinton presidency and made it very clear that it wasn't taken seriously. The Clinton people said (Clinton impression), "We never worked harder on anything in our lives. Richard Clarke, I mean, we were doing everything. We are hunting these people down. We were launching missiles whenever we thought we'd targeted these people." If there's anything in, therefore, the millennium after-action review document that would spell out just how tough and just how wonderful and just how comprehensive the Clinton terrorism policy was, well, I would think they want to release this report. But no, they are suppressing it. They have the legal right to do it, but are they being obstinate. They don't want this after-action review reported.

Again, just refresh your memory on this, there was an incident outside Seattle -- and this was covered in the movie, The Path to 9/11, by the way. A bunch of Muslim terrorists planned on going down to Los Angeles and having a fun day with some bombs, and a very alert female Customs agent uncovered the whole thing simply on the basis of this guy's behavior and instincts. It was great police work, and after that happened, Clinton and his gang started touting how wonderful their policy was, and it was the policy that had enabled the Customs agent to in fact snag this terrorist person, and they wanted that to be the official thing that the 9/11 Commission concluded. They wanted a stamp of approval because everything about Clinton is building a legacy and writing one because there isn't one of substance that he enjoys. By the way, Monica Lewinsky didn't blow this one. She got an economics degree at the London School of Economics. I don't know why I thought of this, but I did. I guess we start talking about Clinton's legacy, you think Lewinsky (sigh) and cigars. We use cigars here, too, but we light them. We smoke them.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I know this isn't going to happen, but Hillary Clinton ought to be asked about these documents that Sandy Burglar stole and altered or edited, or whatever he did to them. She ought to be asked about those documents at every speaking engagement, every campaign stop; every press event. Will she call on her former administration to release the documents? No way. But she should be made to do so. She should be forced and pressured to do so. As I said, the idea that Scooter Libby is on trial for his freedom and Sandy Burglar is free having been caught in the act is outrageous, and as I said earlier, there's all kinds of outrage, and there's shock and there's disgust, the obvious reactions, but why? Why people reacting this way? Come on, folks, it's the Clintons! Everybody lies about sex; everyone lies about billing records. Why shouldn't everyone lie about classified documents? What did Burglar cover up? It makes no difference. It's the Clintons, stupid! We're talk about a legacy here. We're talking about a 2008 campaign. In the words of the mob, "fughetaboutit," and that's going to be the reaction of the Drive-By Media. There's not going to be any interest in this, particularly with the dump here on this report coming so close to the Christmas holidays, but these documents are history, folks, and the idea they can be when he would from the American people is pathetic. That is exactly what happens. Let's go back to the archives for more audio sound bite review in this whole process. We last played you Sandy Burglar saying that everything that he had done all along in the process and had been "for the purpose of aiding and supporting the work of the 9/11 Commission." (laughing) Yeah, right, and next up on the Today Show, July 21st of 2004, the day after we first learned of Burglar's burglary, Katie Couric, who then had an audience on the Today Show, was talking to Lanny Breuer, Sandy Burglar's lawyer, and Katie Couric says, "Some of the New York tabloids are suggesting that he stuffed documents in his socks. What's that about?"

BREUER: I don't know what it's about. It's scurrilous and it's absolutely false!

COURIC: That's not --

BREUER: We've been handling this matter, Katie, since October. Not once, not once in any conversation with the Department of Justice has anyone ever made such a ridiculous claim. That claim came for the first time when someone leaked it without any basis at all. It didn't happen and it's false and it's a character assassination.

RUSH: Let's play the violins. My heart bleeds. We now know that he got them out of there somehow and then hid them under a construction trailer on a construction site near the National Archives. But, you know, this was not the last person, his lawyer, to speak on this. July 20th, 2004, at a book signing in Denver, former President Clinton had this to say about Sandy Burglar's document burglary.

CLINTON: I believe hi-his explanation. He did a fabulous job against terror. All those records were documented, and the one big question involved in what we did leading up to the Millennium where we had no terrorist incidents when we prevented a lot of them so I think that, you know, he should just cooperate; he says he's going to do it. But that man worked his heart out for eight years, and I think -- and he was there for, you know, all day, 24 hours, four days in a row, and he says what happened and I have no reason not to believe him.

RUSH: No reason not to believe him. The truth never mattered to the Clinton administration anyway, so what does it matter whether you believe him or not? How about this as a job review. (Clinton impression) "He did a fabulous job against terrorists." I never knew he took one on! He did a fabulous job against terrorists? "All those records are documented, and the one big question involved what we did in the lead-up to the Millennium where we had no terrorist incidents and we prevented a lot of them..." See, Clinton himself, he knows what Burglar was in there after. It was the Millennium after-action review. He mentions the Millennium. They were doing everything they could to shape that event out there into one that was the result of their great, great policy and forethought and planning, trying to steal the credit from a very competent cop, a Customs agent at the time, because they're in search of a legacy. They wanted that to be the official statement in the final report of the 9/11 committee, and that's what this was all about, and what was in that document must be pretty damaging to go in there and change it. One little final bite, here's Bill Richardson on July 20th of 2004 talking about Burglar.

RICHARDSON: Well, obviously Sandy's admitted to a mistake, uh, in -- in that process, but I've known him for 20 years. The guy is honorable. He's a dedicated public servant. Uh, I'm sure it was a careless, sloppy moment. Uh, an investigation is going on, uh, but I believe that what Sandy was -- I always remember him as disheveled.

RUSH: Yeah!

RICHARDSON: He had 50 papers running around.

RUSH: Yeah!

RICHARDSON: His tie was off --

RUSH: Yeah!

RICHARDSON: -- sort of like me (chuckles) and I just think maybe this is a case of sloppiness. I don't think there was any malicious intent.

RUSH: No, noooo! Of course not! It's the Clintons, how could there have been any malicious intent? No, no, no. He's just a slob, an honorable slob who had a slobby moment. I'm sure there was some mud. There couldn't have been snow. Well, you never know. There may have been mud underneath the construction trailer where he first hid the documents.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!