Hire Disney for National Security
By Tom Barrett (07/27/04)
When the Democrat Co-Chair of the 9-11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, gave a short television interview concerning the final Commission report, he cited our nation's "lack of imagination" no less than eight times. According to him, more "imagination" would have saved us from the dedicated Islamic terrorists. Therefore I suggest that we contact the Disney organization and put them in charge of National Security. They have a huge department in their organization dedicated to "Imagineering" which might save us from the next 9-11.
This is an insult to our intelligence community. Since terrorists started attacking us they have been doing simulations and trying to get inside the heads of our enemies. They even envisioned scenarios in which terrorists would attempt to use airplanes as missiles. No, it wasn't "lack of imagination" that made 9-11 possible. It was government-mandated walls built between our spy agencies, combined with a lack funding caused by Clinton slashing from their budgets.
This concept of "lack of imagination" is a recent addition to the tainted Commission's repertoire. I have not seen it mentioned in the numerous staff reports that have been issued on the way to the 575 page final report. And speaking of staff reports, Hamilton directly contradicted his professional staffers (the people who actually interviewed and worked with the counter-terrorism experts, as opposed to the political hacks like Hamilton who spent their time grand-standing for the TV cameras).
According to Staff Report Fifteen, issued a few months ago, al Qaeda has been effectively crushed by Bush's decisive and aggressive actions. Osama is no longer in control of what is left of the organization; field leaders control the pockets of the terrorist organization that are left. Most important, according to the staff report, al Qaeda is not currently capable of mounting an attack similar to 9-11. Hamilton ignored the experts, and instead painted a gloomy picture in which a massive al Qaeda attack is imminent.
Now, it is certainly possible that Democrat Hamilton is right and the experts are wrong. But could there be another explanation for his extreme pessimism, which closely mirrors that of Mr. Pessimism himself, Hamilton's boy John Kerry? (I'll give you a clue; it is the word "Democrat" in front of Hamilton's name.) Could it be that Hamilton is using his position on the "non-partisan" Commission to attack President Bush? Say it ain't so!
There may be another reason for Hamilton's contradictions (which are also reminiscent of his boy Kerry) and strange talk about "imagination." It might be to draw attention away from Kerry's close ties to Sandy Berger, who is under criminal investigation for violations of National Security laws.
Kerry's national security advisor is now his "former advisor." Kerry, well-known for his loyalty, dropped Berger like a red-hot potato as soon as the word got out about the criminal investigation by the FBI for theft of top-secret documents. Interestingly, Kerry also removed a major section of his website concerning his "Anti-Terror" plan when it became known that Berger was under criminal investigation.
According to an article by Jeff Ganon on Talon News Service (see link below), "The sudden disappearance of the policy from the (Kerry) campaign web site that coincided with Berger's dismissal supports Republicans' contention that the purloined data formed the basis of at least part of the Democratic candidate's homeland security program." Could it be that much of Kerry's plan came from the stolen documents? Let us hope not.
Unfortunately for John Kerry's presidential aspirations, the material he removed was cached by Google.com. It was rescued before it could also be destroyed, and is now posted on a conservative website called Free Republic. You can read it for yourself on the link below.
All the facts are not in yet, and the FBI is not talking. But let's look at what we do know about the case before we explore Berger's possible motivations for the crimes for which he is accused. Bear in mind that he is innocent until proven guilty.
We know that the investigation is a criminal one; it is not an investigation for being "clumsy" or "sloppy" or "misplacing" documents as Berger claims. We know that he was observed by employees of the National Archives secreting top-secret documents in his clothing. We know that some of these employees made special marks on certain documents that he took so that they could later identify them.
We know that the FBI obtained search warrants from a federal judge and searched both Berger's office and residence. We know that Berger admitted that he took the documents they were seeking, and that he has stated publicly that he "accidentally" destroyed them. We know that he requested multiple copies of certain documents; the only possible explanation for this was that he wanted to make sure no copies were left in the Archives. And we know that the majority of the documents that most interested him concerned the Millennium terrorist threat and Bill Clinton's mishandling of Millennium security.
Most important, we know that he was there at Bill Clinton's request to choose which documents the 9-11 Commission would see. Berger has stated that the Commission received all the documents "that they requested." Bill Clinton taught him well how to lie without being caught. I'm sure the Commission did receive what they requested; they know how to check a list. But what about all the documents that they SHOULD have seen, but which were withheld or destroyed by Berger? What would they have proved about Clinton's criminal neglect of the terrorist threat? We will never know, thanks to the accident-prone Berger's "clumsiness" and "sloppiness."
By the way, Clinton's first National Security Advisor, David Gergen, and Clinton himself immediately rushed to the talk shows to portray Berger as the "absent-minded professor" type, claiming that he was indeed sloppy, clumsy, forgetful and a general all-around incompetent. They were trying to support Berger's claims, but their defense of him does raise an interesting question. Why in the world was a man such as they describe put in the position of National Security Advisor?
As Clinton's second National Security Advisor, Berger knew far better than 99.99% of the people in this country the laws that govern the handling of classified materials. Ignoring theses laws, he removed both classified materials and notes from a secure room. At first he claimed that he only took copies, but now his own attorney has admitted that he also took leather bound ORIGINAL top-secret documents from our nation's Archives (see link below). Can someone please explain to me how he could have "accidentally" stuffed a leather bound document in his pants? Maybe a piece of paper or two might have fallen off the table and into his shorts, but a hard-bound document? Come on.
Government officials have also stated that some of the documents removed (can I say stolen?) identified America's vulnerabilities to terrorists at airports and seaports. We can only pray that he actually destroyed these, rather than "accidentally" "clumsily" leaving them lying around where a terrorist cell might find them. Absent-minded professor indeed!
Three possible explanations have been floated by political pundits. The Democrats like the last one best, since it does the least damage to John Kerry, but let's look at all three.
First, since Clinton sent Berger to the Archives to choose which documents the Commission would see, there is supposition that he took the documents to re-write history by removing evidence harmful to Clinton. This would benefit Clinton, who is hysterical about protecting his "legacy," and would also benefit Kerry, since most Americans feel Kerry would be a Clinton-like president. This theory makes sense, because both are of the socialist persuasion, and both have the same lack of moral integrity. The idea makes Clinton lovers gleeful and the rest of us nauseous.
The second theory has to do with Berger's employment by the Kerry campaign. It is indeed mysterious that Kerry gave a major presentation concerning aspects of the 9-11 Commission report the week before it was released. He had much more familiarity with the contents of the report than he should have had. Perhaps Berger gave him this information. The fact that Kerry removed his entire "Anti-Terror" plan from his website immediately after Berger was busted in the news lends credibility to this theory.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Tom Barrett
